Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Teacher Training (New College)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to provide a new teachers' training college with a view to relieving the existing overcrowding situation; and where he proposes to site it.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to make Regulations empowering the Scottish Council for the Training of Teachers to undertake the provision of a new college of education in the West of Scotland. The council recommended that the new college should be sited in the Hamilton area.

Mr. Dempsey: May I say to the Minister that I am very grateful to him for making that statement in view of the pressure on accommodation and that I am quite sure that everyone will be very happy about what he has said?

Hospital Services, Lanarkshire

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed to start the erection of a new general hospital in Lanarkshire; and what site has been selected for this purpose.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): The Western Regional Hospital Board is, at my right hon. Friend's request, now considering the future pattern of hospital services in Lanarkshire, and when this review is completed, it will be submitting proposals for long-term redevelopment. Until then, no decisions about sites or dates for building can be taken.

Mr. Dempsey: Will the Minister take into consideration the fact that this project was mooted over twenty years ago but had to be abandoned owing to the outbreak of war, and will he have regard to the need for this type of hospital in the County of Lanark?

Mr. Galbraith: Certainly.

Glasgow-Stirling Road (Petrol Filling Stations)

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what provision he proposes making for the siting of petrol service stations on the A.80 Glasgow to Stirling Road.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend has no power to make provision for sites for petrol filling stations on trunk roads such as A.80. Applications for planning permission to develop them on the adjoining land are dealt with by the local planning authorities on their merits.
The requirements of road safety, however, make it imperative to restrict the number of accesses to trunk roads. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a circular dealing with the effect of this on petrol filling station applications.

Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that planning permission was given and a licence granted to build a public house on the A.82 Glasgow to Dumbarton road with access to the main motor road, and would he not agree that it is far better to give planning permission and access to a motor road for petrol filling stations to enable cars to be filled with petrol than for public houses to enable them to fill the drivers with booze?

Mr. Macpherson: Each case has to be, and is, treated on its merits. The hon. Gentleman is aware of the various considerations that arise in these matters.

Mr. Bence: There is no merit in drinking by a motor driver.

Employment, North-East Scotland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he is aware of the disparities between the encouragement given to the south of Scotland and the north-east of Scotland, respectively, directed to the expansion of existing industries and the foundation of new industries; and if he will


state his present plans to redress these disparities in such a way as to stop the drift of workers from North-East Scotland;
(2) if he is aware of the unemployment caused in Aberdeen shipyards and engineering firms by the recent reduction in orders for shipbuilding, ship-repairing and engineering; and what steps he has taken this winter to find remedies for these financial and economic problems.

Mr. N. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend is aware of the problem of unemployment in Aberdeen. Both the Aberdeen—Stonehaven—Inverurie and the Buckie—Peterhead districts have been included in the first list of development districts under the Local Employment Bill, and all the forms of assistance which will be available under the Bill will apply to these districts exactly as they apply to development districts elsewhere.

Mr. Hughes: Why does not the Secretary of State produce a co-ordinated plan for the whole of Scotland instead of this invidious jungle which further depopulates the North and drives people to the South, to Luton and places like that, where they can get decent housing accommodation?

Mr. Macpherson: The purpose of the Bill to which I have referred is precisely to try to bring industry to those places which need it most.

John o' Groats-Land's End (Walking Race)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make an estimate of the cost to public funds, by way of provision of medical services, of the recent walking race from John o' Groats.

Mr. Galbraith: So far, about a hundred walkers have received minor out-patient treatment and two were admitted to hospital for one night. The estimated cost is about £100.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Minister aware that, in addition to the medical cost, there must be a number of other items to be laid against public funds by way of National Assistance, police costs and so on in relation to this very irresponsibly organised publicity stunt? Is it not a bit thick that these poor local

authorities which are anxious to attract people to the Highlands for holidays should be asked to subsidise an advertising scheme for a commercial holiday camp concern?

Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman asked about medical services and I have answered that Question. If he would like to put down another Question on the other point, I should be glad to answer it.

Burrell Collection

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to arrangements to be made in respect of the Burrell Collection at present in the possession of the City of Glasgow.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Such arrangements are a matter between the Glasgow Corporation and the Burrell Trustees as the parties concerned with the deed of gift.

Mr. Thomson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Burrell Collection, a most magnificient art collection, is a very valuable Scottish national possession, and that it is now sixteen years since the original gift was made but so far there is no sign that there is any chance for the public to enjoy it?

Mr. Macpherson: I am aware of that, but the problem is one of housing the collection in suitable conditions for the preservation of the tapestries, paintings, etc., and at the same time housing them where they can be seen by the public. These matters are for Glasgow Corporation, and I am quite certain that it will continue to do its best to find an acceptable arrangement. Glasgow has not been backward in looking after its treasures in the past.

South East of Scotland Regional Hospital Board

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what amount of money has been allocated to the South East of Scotland Regional Hospital Board for new hospitals and extensions for the financial year 1960–61; and what amount of that sum has been allocated to the East Fife Hospitals Board of Management.

Mr. Galbraith: The allocation to the Regional Board for 1960–61 is £654,000. Ninety-nine thousand pounds is to be spent in East Fife of which £3,650 will be available to the Board of Management for minor works.

Mr. Gourlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the sum allocated to the East Fife Board is completely inadequate to meet the hospital requirements of the Kirkcaldy area? His reply confirms the suspicion that he does not intend to authorise the start of the geriatric unit at Buck haven this year. Will he reconsider that decision?

Mr. Galbraith: I do not think I could. In recent years, as the hon. Member probably knows, capital expenditure on hospitals in Fife has been above the Scottish average.

Law of the Sea (Geneva Conference)

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland who will represent his Department at the Conference on the Law of the Sea about to be held at Geneva.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn): The United Kingdom delegation led by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food will include a senior official of the Scottish Home Department.

Mr. Hoy: In view of the conditions at present obtaining in Scottish waters, and the intrusion of foreign fleets, would not the hon. Gentleman think that, on an occasion such as this, we should have had direct Ministerial representation from Scotland at Geneva?

Mr. Leburn: My right hon. Friend will be representing the Government as a whole. He is aware of the Scottish fishery interests.

Rivers (Industrial Effluent)

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many cases river purification boards have insisted on suitable plant being installed to treat industrial effluent before emission to rivers; how many prosecutions for pollution have been undertaken by these boards since their inception; and with what results.

Mr. Galbraith: In seventy-two cases so far consents given by river purification boards for new industrial outlets or discharges have included conditions calling for the installation of treatment plant. There have been seven prosecutions involving offenders in fines of up to £15, but I understand none has involved an industrial effluent.

Mr. Manuel: Is the Joint Undersecretary of State aware—I am sure he is—that there is still a great deal of obnoxious and poisonous effluent being emitted into Scottish rivers? What further steps does he think should be taken in order to stop that particular nuisance? He says that industry has been notified by the river purification boards about the installation of plant to treat this effluent. Does he know whether that plant has been installed? It is no use calling upon industry to install plant unless someone sees that the work is done.

Mr. Galbraith: I have a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member's point of view, as I think he knows, and I realise that a great deal has still to be done. I understand that in some 130 cases treatment plant has been installed on the advice of the board up to date.

Day Nurseries and Nursery Schools

Mr. Manuel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of day nurseries and nursery schools provided by local authorities during 1949 and the comparative number for 1959.

Mr. N. Macpherson: In 1949 the number of local authority day nurseries and nursery schools was 83 and 64 respectively compared with 72 and 76 in 1959.

Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in certain areas these day nurseries and nursery schools are used for the training of young girls who wish to become nurses? Many young girls are now finding it difficult to enter these nurseries to get this necessary training. Can he hold out any hope of an expansion so that these girls may follow their inclinations?

Mr. Macpherson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have to deal with the education building programme in accordance with strict priorities. I think he is well aware of the priorities that force themselves upon us at the present time.

Miss Herbison: Surely the figures the hon. Gentleman has given show that there has been a decrease over these ten years in day nurseries? These are places where these young women can be trained. That is what my hon. Friend is worried about.

Mr. Macpherson: Yes. Day nurseries are for children whose mothers have to go out to work or who, for some other reason, cannot be properly looked after at home. Where day nurseries have been withdrawn, I am informed that there has been no substantial complaint following upon the withdrawal.

Scottish Special Housing Association

Mr. Millan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions there are as to the numbers of houses for which the Direct Labour Department of the Scottish Special Housing Association Limited may tender in the current year.

Mr. Galbraith: The only restriction is the amount of work which the organisation, as at present constituted, can carry out.

Mr. Millan: Is it not a fact that there has been a restriction on the number of houses for which the organisation may tender? Is it not intolerable that there should be artificial restrictions put on this organisation, particularly when we consider that it has made a surplus of more than £1,250,000 over the years and this has been of benefit to the taxpayer, and that the number of houses it built in 1959 showed a reduction, with the likelihood of a further reduction in 1960?

Mr. Galbraith: No; there is no restriction on tendering.

Seals

Sir J. Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will publish the recent official report by Dr. Bennet Rae on the effect of seals on Scottish salmon and marine fisheries.

Mr. Leburn: Yes, Sir. The report will be sent for publication as soon as the final text has been received from the author.

Sir J. Duncan: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask if he will also make sure that he reads it and takes action to control the enormously increased number of grey seals?

Mr. Leburn: I will certainly read this report. However, I should not like to commit myself further until I have done so.

Hotel, Annan (Licensing Application)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has refused his consent to a licence for an hotel, not run by the State, at Annan, Dumfriess-shire, despite the fact that the application was unanimously approved and confirmed by the County Licensing Appeal Court, and although representations were made to him by the town council.

Mr. N. Macpherson: On several occasions since 1948 my right hon. Friend has been approached by or on behalf of the proprietors of the Corner House Hotel, Annan, for the grant of his authority for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor. On each occasion the application was considered most carefully, but he could find no sufficient reason within the existing principles which govern such matters in State Management Districts to justify the grant of authority in this case.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will my hon. Friend tell us whether he is satisfied with the situation in which three burghs have a different law from that which applies throughout the rest of Scotland, and if not, what he proposes to do about it in the future?

Mr. Macpherson: The system is one which has been in operation for a long time and it was reaffirmed in 1949, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that he has an open mind about the matter.

Mr. John MacLeod: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is feeling among people of all political persuasions, certainly in my constituency, that this is quite wrong?

Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this system has worked in England, as well as in Scotland, since the First World War, that there have been very few complaints over that period, and that it would be a great pity to upset an arrangement which is so satisfactory and was made by all political parties at that time?

Mr. Macpherson: I am aware that it has been in operation for a long time, but I am also aware that there have been complaints, especially recently.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that the purposes for which this action was taken have for a long time ceased to exist?

Mr. Macpherson: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to have regard not only to the origin of this but to the fact that he is expected to judge of applications in the light of the principle of disinterested management.

Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride (Maternity Unit)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Western Regional Hospital Board has yet reached a conclusion after its further consideration of the need for maternity provision to be made at Hairmyres Hospital, East Kilbride.

Mr. Galbraith: The Western Regional Hospital Board has decided in principle that a general practitioner maternity unit at Hairmyres Hospital is a desirable long-term development but they see no prospect of providing it until the general redevelopment of hospital services in Lanarkshire has gone much further.

Mrs. Hart: While I welcome this statement by the Minister—I can assure him it will also be very warmly welcomed in East Kilbride—may I ask him to convey to the hospital board that there is a good deal more urgency than this Answer seems to indicate, in view of the fact that the number of babies now being born is quite enough to keep a new maternity unit very busy indeed?

Secondary Schools (Course in Modern Studies)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations have been made to him on the unsuitability for its purpose of his suggested course in modern studies for secondary schools; and what reply he has made.

Mr. N. Macpherson: None, Sir, since the syllabus and specimen question papers were published.

Mrs. Hart: If the hon. Gentleman has not received representations, is he aware

of the very strong views which have been expressed by professors and lecturers of Glasgow University who indicated as recently as yesterday in the Glasgow Herald that only the Encyclopædia Britannica could cover the range of knowledge demanded in the suggested curriculum? While we on this side of the House very warmly welcome the idea of this course, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not think it desirable that he should initiate discussions with the universities and the training colleges on the matter of the curriculum and on the question of training teachers who will be able to carry out the curriculum in the schools?

Mr. Macpherson: With regard to the first part of the supplementary question, the Working Party on the Curriculum of the Senior Secondary School recommended that there should be some course in which the emphasis would be placed on what would be useful for men and women to know as a background to present-day affairs. That suggestion was passed to the various educational bodies, and by and large they approved of the suggestion, and it was in the light of their comments that the syllabus and the specimen questions were sent out.

Mr. Rankin: Surely when the Department agrees to a new course it is also its business to see that there is available staff qualified to deal with it?

Mr. Macpherson: It is the history and geography staff which will be dealing with the new course. I should perhaps explain that the course leads to the ordinary grade examination in modern studies.

Out-patients' Department, Edinburgh Royal Infirmary (Thefts)

Mr. J. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many thefts from out-patients attending the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary have been reported to the police; and what steps have been taken by the hospital authorities to prevent such thefts.

Mr. Galbraith: Since January, 1959, eight thefts have been reported to the police. The South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board has appointed a security officer who is investigating this and other similar problems.

Mr. Taylor: While I appreciate that this is not directly the responsibility of the Secretary of State, may I ask whether the Joint Under-Secretary is anxious, as we all are—I am sure he is—to maintain the great reputation of this hospital? Will he use his influence with the hospital board to ensure that more locker accommodation is provided, particularly in the physiotherapy department?

Mr. Galbraith: I will certainly look into the matter, though we do not want to get this out of perspective. One must remember that the Royal Infirmary deals with over 500,000 out-patients each year.

Mr. Hoy: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how this record compares with what is done at similar hospitals in other parts of the country?

Mr. Galbraith: I should require notice of that supplementary question.

Forth Road Bridge and Bathgate Development

Mr. Stodart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the Association of County Councils in Scotland concerning traffic problems arising from recent industrial developments to the west of Edinburgh and the construction of the Forth road bridge; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. N. Macpherson: The Association has suggested that a conference of all interested authorities should be convened to discuss these problems.
In reply my right hon. Friend has expressed the view that much more information than is at present available about traffic movements in the area should be sought before such a discussion could serve a useful purpose.

Mr. Stodart: Is my hon. Friend determined to be unaware of the considerable public interest which is felt in this matter and of the fact that it has been expressed by many reputable bodies, including the Association of County Councils, and will he give greater consideration to the views which have been expressed upon what these bodies regard as an urgent problem in the light of the coming of the Forth road bridge and industrial development at Bathgate?

Mr. Macpherson: It is because my right hon. Friend is aware that there may be problems here that he wants to get the basic information first before he goes on to discuss with the various authorities what steps should be taken in the matter.

The Highlands (Holiday Traffic)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek the advice of Mr. Butlin, as well as that of Mr. Hugh Fraser, in his endeavours to stimulate holiday traffic in the Highlands.

Mr. Leburn: My right hon. Friend is always ready to receive advice which might further his endeavours to stimulate appropriate tourist traffic in the Highlands. Mr. Butlin has already given him quite a lot to think about.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of Mr. Butlin's discovery that walking in the Highlands is a very interesting and invigorating past-time in the winter, and also that he must have discovered the beauties of the Highlands in even the worst of weather, will the hon. Gentleman encourage him to set up one of his holiday camps there and also perhaps to co-operate with Mr. Fraser in developing the holiday industry in the Highlands?

Sir T. Moore: May we hope that walking competitions will not be included in the proposed excitements for tourists?

Mr. John MacLeod: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the majority of the people in the Highlands do not want Butlin camps? There are much pleasanter recreations there than having a Butlin camp.

Local Government

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will appoint an independent committee to inquire into the structure and functions of local government in Scotland.

Mr. Galbraith: My right hon. Friend has no plans for an immediate inquiry into the present system which has worked well in the main; but it has now existed for a generation and he will certainly consider within the next year or two whether there should be a comprehensive review of it.

Mr. Fraser: Will the Joint Undersecretary take account of the fact that some years ago all the local government associations in Scotland, in giving evidence to the Royal Commission on Scottish affairs, advised the setting up of an independent committee to inquire into the local government structure? Will he also bear in mind that in recent years when hon. Members on both sides of the House have been asking for powers to be given to district councils, the reply has always been that this should not be done piecemeal and that we should look at it objectively? Would it not be desirable, to have this inquiry at an early date?

Mr. Galbraith: There may be something to be said for having the inquiry, as I indicated in my Answer, but my right hon. Friend would rather wait until after revaluation takes place, and then he can see the financial set-up of the various areas.

Miss Harvie Anderson: While I thank my hon. Friend for his assurance of interest on the part of the Scottish Office in this respect with regard to district councils, may I ask him to consider publicising the powers which are already held by district councils so that they may be widely used?

Mr. Galbraith: I will certainly look into that.

River Purification Advisory Committee

Mr. T. Fraser: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last laid before Parliament a copy of any report made to him by the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee set up under the provisions of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951.

Mr. Galbraith: This Committee has not hitherto proceeded by way of formal report. Its recommendations so far have been mainly on minor procedural matters and have been informally brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend's Department by the Secretariat.

Mr. Fraser: Is it not rather a disappointment that this Committee, for which statutory authority was given in 1951, seems not yet to have given advice to the Secretary of State which he considers to be of general public interest,

as a result of which he would have the responsibility of making a report to Parliament? How on earth are we expected to know what has happened under the 1951 Act if no report is ever to be published?

Mr. Galbraith: The Committee has been looking into various matters, such as treatment standards, particularly for industrial effluents, and measures for improving the operation of sewage treatment plants, and also whether a refresher course for the operators of sewage plants should take place, but these scarcely seem matters which would be of general interest to the House, and it is for that reason that nothing has been brought be-fore the House.

Mr. Manuel: As it was clearly indicated in the 1956 Act that we should have a report from the Advisory Committee and as the Secretary of State has not yet received one, what does the Secretary of State propose to do about it? Does he propose to leave things sleeping and get no report from the Advisory Committee which was set up so that we might get things moving?

Mr. Galbraith: I thought I had indicated that it is only if my right hon. Friend considers that the reports of this body are of such a character as to interest the House as a whole that he places them before the House. If they are minor technical matters to do with the treatment of sewage, which is what they have been, my right hon. Friend has not brought them before the House.

Moray House School

Mr. Hoy: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he is now able to announce his decision regarding the future of Moray House School.

Mr. N. Macpherson: No, Sir, my right hon. Friend's consultations are not yet complete.

Mr. Hoy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any further delay will be most unsatisfactory for the parents of the children at present attending the school? Cannot he expedite a decision?

Mr. Macpherson: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend will do his best to expedite it, but he is arranging for a deputation of parents to be seen on Thursday and


is also asking for a report from the governors on the accommodation available, and he would like to consider both these matters before he reaches a decision.

Sheriff-Substitutes (Pensions Scheme)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has made to the proposals for a pension scheme, submitted to him by the Sheriff-Substitutes Association in April, 1959.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Consideration of the proposals is not yet completed.

Mr. Willis: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this is a very long time to be considering the proposals? Does not he think it is about time that the Scottish sheriff-substitutes were put in a similar position with regard to a pensions scheme as their counterparts in England? Why should we lag behind England like this?

Mr. Macpherson: These proposals cover all aspects of the superannuation arrangements both for the whole-time sheriffs and for the salaried sheriff-substitutes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, they could not be implemented without legislation. I assure him that there will be no undue delay.

Rheumatism

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds are devoted to patients suffering from rheumatism in the hospitals covered by the Western Regional Hospital Board.

Mr. Galbraith: Patients suffering from rheumatism are treated mainly in the general medical wards of hospitals. There are, however, thirty beds at Killearn Hospital devoted specifically to the treatment of rheumatism.

Miss Herbison: Is it not clear from the Minister's reply that there are only thirty beds put aside for the specific treatment of rheumatism, and that there is a dearth of proper accommodation for such patients in the west of Scotland? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many medical people in the west of Scotland deplore the position?

Mr. Galbraith: I think that the hon. Lady knows that the regional board is at present considering the establishment of a special rheumatism unit in Glasgow.

Miss Herbison: Surely the Minister is aware that it has been considering this since 1957, and that a decision ought to have been taken a considerable time ago.

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the extent of the facilities for rheumatological research in the Western Infirmary, Glasgow.

Mr. Galbraith: A research unit established by the Medical Research Council undertakes research into certain aspects of this problem. It has its own staff of doctors and other research workers, fourteen beds for patients and laboratory and associated facilities.

Miss Herbison: Is the Minister aware that again this is not considered nearly sufficient for this area in Scotland? Since that is the case, will he do everything possible to expedite the provision of further facilities at Belvidere Hospital?

Mr. Galbraith: I would not like to be tied down to Belvidere Hospital, but in general my right hon. Friend is anxious to proceed in this matter.

Miss Herbison: Because of the Answers which I received last week, and the unsatisfactory nature of the replies that I have had to two Questions today, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Farms (Rents)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent he estimates farmers' rents have increased since the passing of the Agriculture Act, which made provisions for landlords to increase such grants.

Mr. Leburn: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind Section 2 of the Agriculture Act, 1958, which came into effect on 1st August, 1958.
A sample inquiry covering 1,155 farms suggests that changes in rent occurred on only 8 per cent. of tenanted farms between the second half of 1958 and the second half of 1959, and that the average increase in rent on these farms was about 61 per cent.
As there was no change in the remaining 92 per cent. the overall effect was an average increase of about 5 per cent.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware tht his figures confirm the protest of a well-known Conservative farmer in Ayrshire, who is vice-chairman of the Ayrshire County Council, who has said that farms are being let to new tenants at more than 50 per cent.? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this same gentleman, who is a recognised agricultural authority, says that this represents an increase of a 1d. per gallon on the price of milk which will ultimately have to be paid by the consumer? Is it to be that the Scottish public will have to pay 1d. per gallon more for milk in order to give a subsidy to the landlords?

Mr. Leburn: I should like to confirm the arithmetic put forward by the hon. Gentleman before committing myself.

Mr. Manuel: It is correct.

Marginal Aid Production Grants

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent protests he has received from representative farmers in Scotland about the reduction in marginal aid production grants.

Mr. Leburn: Representations recently received from the Caithness Area of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland were answered by a letter from my right hon. Friend's Department to which the hon. Member may have seen reference in the Press. I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there is general dissatisfaction among the farmers of Scotland at the way the Government are whittling down the M.A.P. grant? This year £70,000 less is being paid. Much more was paid in previous years. Are the Government now whittling away the M.A.P. grant so that the money can be spent on obsolete armaments?

Mr. Leburn: No, Sir. I think that my hon. Friend made it clear in a letter he sent to the president of the National Farmers' Union on 18th August that the needs of the farms that have been receiving M.A.P. assistance will be kept under review to see how far, in the light of other forms of assistance made available since the inception of the M.A.P. scheme, the number of farms that continue to receive such assistance can be progressively reduced.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of this reply, and the discontent among the farmers of Scotland, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Leaving Certificates

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the designation EIIR was used as a watermark in the last issue of the Scottish Leaving Certificates.

Mr. N. Macpherson: Special paper of this description is supplied for the use of several Government Departments and has been used for Scottish Leaving Certificates since 1953. Only one complaint has been received.

Mr. Rankin: Was that complaint in addition to this one? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that four years ago when the history teachers in Scotland protested against the use of this mark on the examination papers they were assured by his Department that the matter would receive consideration? Is the consideration represented by the transfer of this designation to the obscurity of the Leaving Certificate, and is the Scottish Education Department now going to encourage the teaching of false history in Scottish schools?

Mr. Macpherson: As my Answer showed, this particular paper has been used for the certificates since before four years ago. It has only recently come to the attention of my right hon. Friend who has now, so to speak, seen through his own certificates for the first time.

Mr. Rankin: May I assume that the Secretary of State for Scotland will do something about this matter and remove the issue of these certificates from the man in Whitehall?

Mr. Macpherson: It is intended that this year the certificates shall be printed without the watermark, and after that a new system is being devised which will in any case necessitate a further change.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Films (Foreign Currency Earnings)

Mr. Emery: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of foreign currency earned by British films during 1956, 1957, 1958 and 1959.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Enroll): As the Answer is long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Emery: I thank my hon. Friend for the Answer which I have not yet seen. Would he use all his influence to see that every possible aid is given by our embassies and consulates for the furtherance of the sale of British films abroad?

Mr. Erroll: British commercial officers abroad give all assistance in the promotion of British film exports.

Following is the information:

The overseas earnings of British films actually remitted to the United Kingdom were as follows:


1956
…
…
…
£3,972,000


1957
…
…
…
£4,553,000


1958
…
…
…
£5,061,000

Similar figures for 1959 are not yet available, but it is hoped to publish them shortly. I will send the hon. Member a copy of the figures when they are published.

These figures cover remittances in respect of direct distribution expenses and of rents, royalties and sales of rights in films; they do not include the earnings of films specifically made for television but include the earnings of films made primarily for cinema distribution but sold abroad to television interests.

Highland Counties (New Industries)

Sir D. Robertson: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many new industrial enterprises his Department has attracted to the Highland counties since January, 1959; where they are located; and how many people are employed in them.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): Industrial development certificates have been issued to three projects new to the Highland counties since January, 1959; two of these are in Fort William and one in Inverness. It is estimated that together they will provide employment for 500 people.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not obvious that these somewhat pitiful figures are typical of all the figures since the war ended? Will my hon. Friend suggest to the President of the Board of Trade that there should be a change of machinery? Possibly the Northern Ireland model would be quite a good one.

Mr. Rodgers: This is something we will bear in mind, but I should point out to my hon. Friend that this February there were 1,500 fewer people unemployed than last February, and that six other projects are being considered now.

Sir D. Robertson: Is it not true that nearly all these 1,500 people are engaged only on once-and-for-all jobs? They are not engaged in light manufacturing industries and earning their living in that way, Which is what we want, but are engaged on building houses and schools.

Mr. Rodgers: There is no difference between my hon. Friend and myself about the desirability of further projects.

Imports from China

Mr. Swingler: asked the President of the Board of Trade the net addition in value to United Kingdom imports from China in 1958 compared with the previous year; and what is the net addition in value allowed for this year if all the quotas and allocations set out in Notice to Importers, Number 921, are fully used.

Mr. Erroll: The net addition in value of total imports from China in 1958 over the previous year was approximately £4·3 million. The new quota arrangements announced in Notice to Importers No. 921, cover only about 12 per cent. of United Kingdom imports. If fully used, they will 'provide for a net addition of about £2 million over the value of imports of similar goods in 1958.

Mr. Swingler: Is it not the fact that it is in this range of goods that the substantial increase to which the hon. Gentleman referred is likely to take place? Bearing in mind past restrictions and future potentials, is not it really a meagre sum? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many regard this as a derisory kind of increase which does not allow for any new enterprise in the trades concerned at all?

Mr. Erroll: The quotas provide for a substantial increase. I would draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the reply to his Written Question which will be made available to him in a few hours.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the President of the Board of Trade what principle is adopted in refusing, or partly


refusing, applications by business firms for licences to import from China goods affected by the recent restrictions; and what steps he is taking to ensure that new enterprise is not excluded because firms cannot quote figures of past performance.

Mr. Erroll: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 23rd February.

Mr. Allaun: If it be the wish of the Government to expand trade with China, why cut down on applications or tie firms to past levels? Is it not the fact that some of the most promising trade is along new lines for which, of course, there can be no earlier figures of trade?

Mr. Erroll: It is the normal licensing policy to issue licences in the first instance to importers with a record of previous trade. Full consideration is given to new importers wishing to import. We shall have to take into account new items not covered by quotas.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why he is choosing this moment, when there is an easing of imports from most other sources, to tighten up on imports from China in view of the considerable market for British goods which exists there, as he and I realise from our visit to that country?

Mr. Erroll: I have explained before on a number of occasions, but I will do so again today for the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman, that we are not tightening up on trade with China. We are making reciprocal arrangements which will help our own exporters because exports to China cannot be freely negotiated.

Mr. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have studied those past Answers and the fact remains that with respect to certain commodities he has tightened up? How will that help our exporters?

Mr. Erroll: I do not think that the figures would confirm what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Weights and Measures

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the President of the Board of Trade if,

when framing the forthcoming legislation on weights and measures, he will give consideration to the need to increase above £5 the maximum penalties for offences connected with the delivery of coal.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is giving careful consideration to the appropriate penalties for offences.

Mr. Allaun: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Is he aware that, meanwhile, housewives are being cheated every day; that there is no increased penalty for a second offence and that these maximum penalties were fixed seventy years ago, since when the value of £5 has shrunk considerably?

Mr. Rodgers: The drafting of the new Weights and Measures Bill is well advanced. This point will be carefully borne in mind.

Cotton Reorganisation Scheme

Mr. Thornton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange that the accounts of the amounts paid to firms and individuals for scrapping machinery under the terms of the Cotton Industry Act, 1959, will be subject to the scrutiny of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and laid before Parliament.

Mr. J. Rodgers: These accounts will be open to inspection by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and annual accounts showing the total payments under each scheme will be laid before Parliament.

Sunderland (Ministers' Visit)

Mr. Willey: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make a statement on his visit to Sunderland.

Mr. J. Rodgers: While in Sunderland my right hon. Friend and I discussed employment problems with local authorities, employers and trade unionists, and visited the local Board of Trade estate as well as other industrial sites. As the hon. Member knows, Sunderland is to be a development district, and I hope it will benefit from the facilities available under the Local Employment Bill.

Mr. Willey: While we very much appreciate the visit of the President of


the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary to Sunderland, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that at present the only effective initiative seems to be taken by the town council, and that, in view of the high incidence of unemployment, we feel entitled to expect some stronger and more effective action by the Board of Trade?

Mr. Rodgers: We welcome the appointment of a development officer by the local authority. May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that 2,000 to 3,000 new jobs are expected to accrue in the Sunderland area as a result of the extensions and new developments?

Mr. Chetwynd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this very fleeting visit to the North-East by himself and his right hon. Friend is not regarded as satisfactory by many organisations concerned with finding additional employment in this area?

Mr. Rodgers: Perhaps future events may falsify what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Miners (Alternative Employment)

Mr. Stones: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the document sent to him by the hon. Member for Consett relating to the employment of miners; whether he is aware that miners are fully capable of undertaking other forms of work; and what steps he is taking to encourage industrialists to establish factories in areas where the principal source of labour is likely to be from those whose previous employment was in the mining industry.

Mr. J. Rodgers: My right hon. Friend has seen the document to which the hon. Member refers, and agrees with him that contrary to what is said therein miners are fully capable of undertaking other forms of work. The Board of Trade is doing what it can to encourage industrialists to establish factories where there is a need for new jobs, whether for ex-miners or for others; and in those areas where the need is greatest special inducements will be available under the terms of the Local Employment Bill.

Mr. Stones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency there is a very large steelworks and a ballbearings factory and that many ex-

miners are employed there and have given complete satisfaction? Is he aware that any statement that miners can do only their own job is completely untrue? Is he further aware that there is grave concern in the Durham coalfield at the possibility of redundancy in the not-too-distant future, and that anything he can do to relieve the anxiety of the people in that coalfield by way of providing alternative employment will be greatly appreciated?

Mr. Rodgers: There are several instances known to us of ex-miners being employed on precision work in the light engineering industry. The Consett Iron Company has taken on a few hundred ex-miners and their work is extremely satisfactory.

D.A.T.A.C. Applications

Mr. Mapp: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange that applications to the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee made before the appointed day of the Local Employment Bill are dealt with on their merits and without regard to whether the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee's area involved is excluded from the list of areas to benefit under the Bill.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) last Thursday.

Mr. Mapp: Is the Minister aware that, in connection with a recent application from Oldham, the Ministry's Manchester office said in effect that they were preoccupied with the schedule area on the Liverpool side? If I supply the Minister with details of this case, will he undertake that these cases will have proper attention?

Mr. Rodgers: The D.A.T.A.C. Committee has said that it will complete consideration of as many D.A.T.A.C. applications as possible before the new Bill comes into force.

Mr. Jay: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that all these applications will be considered? If they came forward during a period when the area in question was included, would it not be quite unreasonable not to consider them?

Mr. Rodgers: I am afraid I cannot give that assurance. The Committee will do its best to complete as many as possible, but I cannot give an assurance that all will be considered.

Factory, Oldham

Mr. Mapp: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Ministry of Supply factory at Keb Lane, Oldham, has been vacant for some months; and if he will make a statement as to its future use.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Aviation is at present negotiating with a firm interested in taking over the factory.

Mr. Mapp: May I ask the Minister if he will bear in mind the urgency of letting the factory, if at all possible, in view of difficulties arising out of the Cotton Industry Act which will be with us in a few weeks' time?

Mr. Rodgers: Certainly, we will bear all these things in mind. The Board of Trade is co-operating with the Ministry of Aviation in trying to find a suitable tenant.

Coal (Exports to Scandinavia)

Mr. Boyden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the practical difficulties which deter him from negotiating an agreement with Poland to enable British coal to be imported into Scandinavia on reasonable terms.

Mr. Erroll: The practical difficulties are that any agreement of the kind the hon. Member suggests would be ineffectual unless it covered oil as well as coal and unless all important suppliers, including the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as Poland and ourselves, became parties to it.

Mr. Boyden: Surely, the President of the Board of Trade can start negotiations to try to get agreement amongst these countries? One of the problems is a shortage of foreign currency in Poland, and surely we can make a move in that direction?

Mr. Erroll: As a matter of Government commercial policy, we do not favour inter-Governmental agreements of this kind, even if they were practicable.

Bishop Auckland and Barnard Castle

Mr. Boyden: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the unemployment figures for the local employment offices of Bishop Auckland, Crook, Spennymoor, Shildon, and Barnard Castle, at the last count on 15th February, were worse in almost every particular compared with 7th December, 1959, and that unemployment amongst boys has more than doubled; and how many industrial development certificates have been issued for factory expansion in these areas since 7th December.

Mr. J. Rodgers: I am aware that the situation in the Bishop Auckland district —Which includes Crook, Spennymoor and Shildon—has deteriorated, and the hon. Member will be aware that the district is included in the list of development districts announced last month. The position in Barnard Castle, I am glad to say, is not so serious. Two industrial development certificates have been issued in the Bishop Auckland district since 7th December.

Mr. Boyden: Does the Minister think that this is good enough? Has he not taken any positive steps to approach firms with big offices in London to see whether under the new arrangements they might be induced to go to this area?

Mr. Rodgers: We are continually seeing firms in London in an attempt to steer them to development districts, and we have recently issued two I.D.C.s, one for Spennymoor and one for Crook, which will give employment for an additional 500 people.

Mr. Boyden: Have any steps been taken in regard to offices of private businesses? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the failure of the Government to move their own offices to Durham is yet another sore point in the North-East?

Mr. Rodgers: We spend a great deal of our time at the Board of Trade in interviewing private industrialists, but the matter of offices is a different question.

New Industries, Jarrow and Hebburn

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will


make a statement about the prospects of new industries for Jarrow and Hebburn.

Mr. J. Rodgers: Industrial developments in hand or projected in South Tyneside East, including Jarrow and Hebburn, are expected to provide between 2,000 and 3,000 new jobs, and it is hoped that the possibility of assistance under the Local Employment Bill when this becomes law will encourage additional industrial development in the area.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does the Parliamentary Secretary appreciate that that is the most helpful Answer he has made at the Dispatch Box for a long time? Can he say whether the 2,000 jobs is a limit, or whether there is further industrial development in the offing, and when the contribution which these jobs would provide is likely to start?

Mr. Rodgers: The 2,000 to 3,000 jobs I have mentioned are firm jobs already projected, but there are other prospects —one of which at least is considerable and will, I hope, be announced in the next few days or a week.

Mr. Short: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether he has yet any statement to make about the extension of Pressed Steel and whether there is any hope of that being located in the North-East?

Mr. Rodgers: I think that any statement on that subject must await Pressed Steel. It is for the company to make the initial announcement.

PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT DE GAULLE

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister what subjects he intends to discuss with President de Gaulle during his forthcoming visit.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): President de Gaulle invited me some weeks ago for a private visit. I accepted his invitation. We expect to discuss matters of common interest.

Mr. Swingler: I thank the Prime Minister for that enlightening reply and I am confident that the right hon. Gentleman will give President de Gaulle the benefit of the cumulative wisdom of Britain in handling colonial problems, including those of America, Ireland, India, Egypt, Kenya and Cyprus. Will

the Prime Minister recall that the last disarmament proposals from which some hope was gained were made as Anglo-French proposals in 1955? In view of all the disturbing rumours about conditions of disarmament among the Western Powers, will he endeavour to arrive at an agreement with President de Gaulle for a new Anglo-French intiative for disarmament in Europe?

The Prime Minister: I do not wish, and I think the House would not expect me, to go into all the subjects which we might usefully discuss. May I point out that disarmament proposals are now to be put forward by the five Powers?

DISARMAMENT

Mr. Warbey: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint a committee to inquire into the economic aspects of disarmament.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Any plan for comprehensive disarmament would have to come into effect by carefully phased stages spread over a number of years. The economy would thus have time to adjust itself.

Mr. Warbey: If, as we all hope, the forthcoming disarmament conference ends in agreement on a plan for total disarmament within a comparatively short space of years, is not this bound to give rise to serious economic problems regarding the deployment of manpower and resources? If the Government are serious about this objective, will not they go for advice to the economists, industrialists and trade unionists regarding problems of redeployment?

The Prime Minister: I should not like to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, but I would point out that some weeks ago Mr. Khrushchev observed:
Hence there is no truth in the assertion that disarmament would lead to crises or economic slumps in the industrially highly-developed countries of the capitalist world.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that at a recent unofficial conference people of status in their own countries, both East and West, said that the opinion of Mr. Khrushchev was certainly accepted as being true of both Socialist or collective economy institutions and those worked by private enterprise rules? Will he also bear in mind that, if this were to be achieved in


a period of four years, it would require special planning and arrangement in both types of economy? Will not he, therefore, reconsider his answer to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend?

The Prime Minister: I will bear all those considerations in mind, but I still think that if we should be relieved of these heavy burdens there should be no difficulty in finding useful outlets for the constructive power of machinery and men which would be available.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: While we warmly welcome the last words of the Prime Minister and while we on this side of the House have always preached exactly what Mr. Khrushchev said—[Interruption.]—while we have always preached that of course there could be large-scale disarmament without any undue economic dislocation, provided proper planning was carried out, is it not a fact that there are in this country, and in other countries, many people who fear the effects of disarmament? Would not a study on the lines proposed by my hon. Friend be of great value in preparing for the disarmament for which we all hope?

The Prime Minister: I do not think a study would prepare opinion, but a study might be valuable, and I will bear in mind what has been said.

WORLD REFUGEE YEAR

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister what response he has sent to the letter from the Blackburn Committee for World Refugee Year urging Her Majesty's Government to double its contribution to the fund.

The Prime Minister: The letter was acknowledged and the Committee informed that its views had been noted.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Prime Minister aware that the target for voluntary subscriptions has now been doubled by the Central Committee of the World Refugee Year for this country? In view of the great public interest and generosity shown, ought not, therefore, the Government to match this public interest and generosity by doubling their own contribution?

The Prime Minister: I think we all realise the tremendous value of this

movement, started by some young men in our own country. It has been a great success with the public. The Government made an initial contribution. The Year ends on 31st May. All relevant factors will be taken into account as to whether the taxpayers should be asked by the Government to add to the contribution.

Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the fact that this is essentially an all-party matter, and we all rejoice at the quite remarkable success of the appeal that has been made, would the Prime Minister consider very seriously the proposal put forward, namely, that we should without further delay double our contribution?

The Prime Minister: I thought the Foreign Secretary put it very well yesterday, when he had the same questions. I think we should take all the facts into account and, before the end of the period, make our decision.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (WAGES)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Prime Minister if he will direct the appropriate Departments to open consultations with the trade unions over methods of fixing wages in the nationalised industries.

The Prime Minister: Machinery for fixing wages and other conditions of employment in the nationalised industries is, in accordance with the nationalising Statutes, settled by agreement between both sides in each industry.

Mr. Grimond: Will not the Prime Minister agree that there are many industries which are not expanding—some are not even profitable—and, indeed, industries in the private sector as well as the public sector in which there is a problem of attracting and keeping adequate labour, especially skilled labour, in competing with industries which pay higher wages? Would not he agree that the general problem is not satisfactorily dealt with by Committees like the Guillebaud Committee, whose Reports almost invariably spark off a leap-frogging progress, which leads to trouble generally?

The Prime Minister: Of course, the hon. Gentleman has referred to what is


a large problem in our economy, especially in our expanding economy, and I do not feel able to deal with it by Question and Answer.

UNIVERSITY SEATS

Mr. Benn: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for restoring the university seats.

The Prime Minister: None, Sir. But if the hon. Gentleman so wishes, I will consult the chancellors of the universities concerned.

Mr. Benn: Is the Chancellor aware —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— that his reply will be received with great relief after the recent medieval frolics in the City of Oxford? May I also congratulate him on having proved once again, by his own tremendous victory by a ballot held in Latin and open for all to see, that the Establishment has nothing to learn from the Electrical Trades Union?

The Prime Minister: Except this, that I think that on this occasion the Establishment was beaten.

Mr. H. Wilson: Nevertheless, will the right hon. Gentleman allow, at any rate, one non-voter of last Saturday, in this case an abstainer, to express the congratulations of, I am sure, the whole House to the right hon. Gentleman, and to congratulate him on his successful slogan once again—Numquam id habuimus tam bonum—which I understand sounds more literate in Latin than in an English translation? Will he also allow me to express the wish, I am sure of the whole

House, that he is more successful as Chancellor at Oxford than he was at the Treasury?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful even for any compliment from the right hon. Gentleman, although I am always ready to understand the mood and tone in which he unbends from time to time. On the subject of the Question, one thing I will undertake. I do not think we will have another Speaker's Conference.

Mr. Lipton: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the graduates of Oxford University who took part in the election last week are now so throughly exhausted that they do not want to vote for anybody or anything for at least another thirty-five years?

The Prime Minister: I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will do my best to survive.

BILL PRESENTED

CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT

Bill to make further provision for the licensing and control of caravan sites, to authorise local authorities to provide and operate caravan sites, to amend the law relating to enforcement notices and certain other notices issued under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, to amend section twenty-six of that Act, and to explain other provisions in the said Part III; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Henry Brooke; supported by Mr. John Maclay, Mr. Derek Walker-Smith, the Attorney-General, and Sir Keith Joseph; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

Orders of the Day — GAS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.32 p.m.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The House has recently directed its attention to several of the industries with which I am connected. We have had three days of discussion on coal this winter. We have had a day on steel. We have had an occasional peep at the oil industry. This afternoon, for the next few hours, we intend to devote our attention to gas.
The next few years will be most important, as I think the House will agree, to the gas industry. Therefore, I wish to deal fairly briefly with the provisions of this short Bill and then to take a general look at the industry's performance and prospects. The Bill attempts to do three things. It raises the limit of borrowings which was imposed by Section 42 of the Gas Act, 1948, and which itself was raised to £450 million by the Act of 1954. The new limit, therefore, will be raised from £450 million to £525 million.
Secondly, the Bill gives me power to authorise the last £25 million of that £525 million after obtaining an affirmative Resolution of the House. Thirdly, the House will have noticed that in Clause 2 the Bill enables me to recover certain charges which are connected with the testing of gas which at present I am unable to recover. To these, I shall refer briefly in a moment.
I do not think I need add much to the explanation of the Bill which is contained in the White Paper. Although I say it, and perhaps should not, I think that it is admirably clear. The Bill is necessary at present because the £450 million borrowing limit is likely to be approached this year and the industry's capital requirements in the seven financial years between April, 1959, to April, 1966, will be about £370 million, of which £18 million will be needed for working capital and £352 million for fixed investment.
Of the £370 million total borrowings in the seven years from April, 1959, the industry expects to raise from its own

internal resources £247 million, about two-thirds. That will leave £123 million to be borrowed. Compared with only one-third of the capital requirements between 1949 and 1959 which were found from the industry's own resources it is, as I suggest, planning to find two-thirds in those seven years. This advance, I think, still remains most encouraging even when one takes into consideration two important matters.
The first is that during the earlier period the effect of inflation was continually increasing the gap between the depreciation at historic cost and the cost of replacement. The second consideration which we should not forget is that in the current seven years capital expenditure will fall slowly and, therefore, the provisions for depreciation will form a larger proportion of the yearly investment. Even taking those two matters into consideration, I think that the House will agree that this represents quite an encouraging advance.
I shall say a word on the revenue prospects of the industry. In 1958–59, the industry made a loss of £1½ million, which was its first loss in the ten years since vesting. Various measures have been taken to restore the position. They have included some tariff adjustments by certain boards and continued efforts everywhere to reduce costs, but, naturally, these could have only a partial effect in the present financial year.
Unfortunately for the industry—I seem to have blamed it in almost every speech I have made in the last few months—we had a memorable summer in 1959. The hot weather created complications for a number of industries and it was followed by a relatively mild winter, although, having felt the temperature of the wind today, I am beginning to think that I am speaking too soon. Demand fell below expectations and a further deficit is likely in the current financial year.
This setback, although a relatively small one, has led to an intensified effort to reduce costs expecially in those boards' areas which are most severely affected. The best estimate I can make of the future is that from 1960 onwards we may reasonably expect a return to the modest level of surplus which the industry had previously been able to earn with the prospect of rather better profits towards the end of this period.
Lastly, on the Bill itself, I should like to say a word about Clause 2 and the matter of gas testing costs. In the Act of 1948, Section 55, the Minister was given the responsibility for appointing gas examiners and their remuneration, including allowances and pensions, was to be recovered from the industry. I am informed on the best legal advice I have obtained that Section 55 does not allow me to recover what I should broadly describe as headquarters costs, that is, the salaries at Ministry headquarters, general Ministry overheads and the salaries of clerical staff, who are working for regional gas examiners.
All those are not covered by Section 55 of the 1948 Act. Therefore, what the Act did was to transfer the costs of gas examiners from the ratepayers to gas consumers and, at the same time, to transfer these headquarters costs from the gas consumers to the taxpayers. I am quite certain that this was not intended. I do not think that anyone thinks that it was intended. This part of the Bill will empower me to recover these headquarters costs as well as other costs which I can at present recover from the industry.
The cost of gas testing, which at present I can recover, is about £110,000 a year, and these headquarters' costs, on the best calculation I have been able to make, are about £70,000 a year. I am, therefore, afraid that I must apologise for a slight mistake in the White Paper; the proportion of the costs which are at present recoverable is about two-thirds and not, as suggested, three-quarters. That is the purpose of that part of the Bill and, having dealt with it, I hope that the House will be satisfied that that is its only object and that we can get on with an examination of the industry.
I want first to draw attention to what has happened since vesting day nearly eleven years ago. Perhaps it would be easiest if I refer hon. Members, not necessarily now but later, to Section II of "Gas Looks Ahead", pages 5 to 8. I do not think that it is necessary to take the time of the House to repeat information which is already available, but several things have impressed me in the visits which I have made in the last few months to boards in various parts of the country.
The first is the very considerable progress which has already been made in concentrating production in the larger units. This is continuing and will continue for several years. The second main impression I have is the great progress made in integrating mains all over the country, perhaps most strikingly in some of the scattered and thinly populated parts of it. Lastly, anyone who has seen some of the boards' arrangements for centralised billing and accounting will recognise that an important step has been taken there.
Since the gas industry published, in 1954, its counterpart to "Gas Looks Ahead", which was called "Fuel for the Nation", the number of domestic consumers, I am glad to say, has increased, but the domestic sales, the number of therms sold to domestic consumers, have not grown as they were then expected to grow. On the other hand, industrial sales have gone ahead much as was forecast in the 1954 plan, probably for mainly two reasons: first, gas is a convenient and a cheap fuel, and in many cases it is the ideal fuel for industry, and, secondly, gas at present is very closely connected with a number of the most modern industries. It is connected with iron and steel, with nuclear power, with electronics, with aviation, and with many forms of engineering.
I sincerely beg any hon. Member who doubts the place of gas in a modern industrial nation and looks upon it as an out-dated fuel to visit a most interesting exhibition, entitled "Gas at Work in Industry", and which is continuing in the Horticultural Hall, in London, until the end of this week. I visited it the other day and I was much educated and, I hope, edified. I was much interested to see the immense part which gas is playing in industry. I hope that hon. Members will avail themselves of the chance to see an exhibition which I think will interest them very much.
Despite this solid industrial achievement and the existence of millions of domestic users, a surprising number of people are still asking whether gas has an economic future in this country. My first reply to that is, "As long as the gas industry economically meets the demand which it serves, I cannot see any advantage in curtailing its activities." Some people argue that it is uneconomic


to supply two services to a house. They say that we must have electricity for lighting and power and, therefore, if we have gas it is an extra service. They suggest that this must be uneconomic. The fact remains that a great many consumers, as we all know, find gas the cheapest and most economic form of heating and cooking, and it is evident that the total domestic needs of a enormous number of householders are frequently most economically met by using both electricity and gas, even though the installation charges of two services may be higher.
I therefore suggest that the economic question about gas which concerns us in the House most closely is whether Parliament is justified in giving Government authority to invest still more money in the industry. I want to be perfectly fair and admit that for over a year the industry has been running at a loss, and although I understand that the falling-off in gas sales seems to be coming to an end there is still a great deal of ground to be regained.
In answering this question for ourselves, however, we ought to bear in mind two or three points. The first is that since nationalisation the industry has held a very large volume of business in circumstances which were almost the whole time more unfavourable to the industry than to its competitors, such as electricity and oil. In the same period there has taken place a great deal of modernisation, as I have been trying to point out, many of the benefits of which have not yet been fully reaped. That is an important point.
Secondly, although labour charges still bear heavily on the gas industry, the modernisation which has taken place is having the obvious effect of making it, if I may use the phrase, more capital intensive, and, therefore, reducing the effect of the high labour charges which have been seriously felt in the past.
Thirdly, I think it reasonable to expect that in the future the raw material costs of the industry will no longer move steadily to its disadvantage, as they did in the early years of nationalisation. I believe that there are prospects—I will come to this later—of considerable savings from new methods of production, storage and distribution.
For what it is worth, my judgment is that the gas industry will have to fight in the next few years, and to fight very hard indeed. Having met a number of people working in the industry, I am quite sure that everyone in the industry is clearly aware of the challenge, and that everyone in the industry is not only ready to meet but is enthusiastic to meet this challenge in the future. In my view, therefore, the economic case for gas rests on its own ability to compete in the future and on the willingness of Parliament to allow it the new developments which the Bill would, naturally, contain and which will enable the gas industry to compete in the years ahead.
No speech on gas would be complete without some reference to coke, because this industry has been completely in the past, is very largely in the present, and will remain very largely in the future, a two-fuel producer. The position at the moment is that considerable stocks of coke exist and because of that, in spite of total gasification processes, like the Lurgi process, the continued ability of the industry to carbonise coal for gas will largely depend on its ability to sell the coke which is produced. Provided that markets can be found for the gas which the industry produces, the more coke that is used the better for the coal industry.
I have been pleased, in the last month or two, to find at least one chairman of a gas board who was concerned at the prospect of obtaining his supplies of gas without coke because he had a ready market for the coke—a market which, he told me, was growing and would continue to grow significantly.
Looking ahead—and I think that many hon. Members will agree with me—I think there is likely to be an increasing demand for fuels which call for no storage and very little effort on the part of the user. We can all see piped and wired fuels developing to a larger extent in the next few years. None of us would underestimate—I am sure that most of us would hate to discourage—the national love of the open fire. When I look back a few years, and think of the time when coal was very scarce, I remember that the fuel economists said rude things about the low efficiency of the open fire, and the Beaver Committee found that coal burned in domestic fireplaces made


a very large contribution to smog. I am glad to say that it now appears that our friend the open fire is turning out to be not quite such a villain after all.
A large variety of modern appliances are now available which will burn all sorts of solid fuel and will give an efficient form of heat. For clean air zones, in particular, an increasing range of smokeless fuel is now appearing on the market. Most gas boards now produce open fire gas coke to British Standards Institution specification and they are working hard to improve the products. For those who want a specially reactive coke which burns better in any fireplace, there is a gradually greater availability of premium smokeless fuel.
I will now look ahead at the future prospects of the industry and at probable and possible developments which may take place in the next few months or the next few years. The first thing I should like to consider is the future use of raw materials in the industry. The production of gas has always been based on coal, and will continue to be largely based on coal, but for many years a substantial amount of oil has been used, as the House knows, in the production of water gas to meet peak loads. Both my predecessor and I have, naturally, been much concerned about coal's future as the main raw material of gas. The Chairmen of the National Coal Board and the Gas Council have been jointly and carefully considering this matter and have recently reported to me
I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Gas Council has agreed to consult with the National Coal Board at the planning stage of any major gas-making project so that the possibilities of basing the scheme on coal will be fully considered and discussed. It has also agreed, I am glad to say, that if the quantity of coal used in an existing plant is to be substantially reduced the longest possible warning will be given to the coal industry.
On its part, the Coal Board has already undertaken useful negotiations with several gas boards. In all the cases which I have in mind the effect will be to encourage the use of coal for gas making. Better supplies have enabled the Coal Board to offer an improved

choice of coals for gas making on more attractive terms, especially for marginal quantities which might otherwise be displaced by oil. I hope that the House will join me in welcoming an agreement which I think does great credit to the good sense of the leaders of both industries and will, I hope, lead to fruitful results in the future.
From coal's point of view an important new means of total gasification in Great Britain—which, as those who know about these things appreciate, will produce no coke—is the Lurgi process, which is designed to operate on a relatively poor quality non-caking small coal. Two plants are being constructed at present—one at Westfield, in Fife, and the other, which is a rather later development, at Coleshill, near Birmingham.
The Lurgi process will produce a lean gas, about 300 B.T.U., which will need enrichment. There are various possibilities for enriching Lurgi gas, but the one which has commanded much attention and to which I should like particularly to refer is enrichment by liquid methane. The House has shown, not only since I became Minister of Power but long before, keen interest in experimental imports of methane and would no doubt like me to say something about them. I wish to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government have given no commitment to allow importation on a commercial scale. They will not do so until the proposals which I expect in the reasonably near future to come forward have been critically examined, both on grounds of commercial merit and on grounds of raw material use in the industry. I would merely say at this stage that the trial shipments have been satisfactory and, whatever their ultimate result, I think that the House will agree that this is a bold and imaginative experiment by an industry which certainly does not look particularly pessimistically at new ideas for the future.
A decision which would prevent the British Gas Council or the British shipping industry from benefiting from a lead which they have clearly established in this field would have to be based on very certain grounds. The critics of these imports argue that larger imports of liquid methane would add to the problems of the coal industry. I well understand such a point of view and the circumstances in which it is very natural to


take that view about imports of liquid methane, but I believe that such a point of view considers the whole matter much too narrowly.
What the Coal industry needs is a thriving gas industry. If imported gases enable the industry to compete more effectively, such imports will not harm coal, but will be to its very great benefit. At present, the seventh and probably the last trial cargo is crossing the sea in the "Methane Pioneer". The appraisal of this experiment, which is a highly complicated one, as those who have studied it at all will know, calls for a very high degree of critical care. It may be some time before the Gas Council puts its proposals to me. When it does so, I undertake to examine them urgently and to report to the House as soon as I can.
There are several other developments which may take place in the future. One which has attracted a certain amount of attention is the possibility of a national gas grid. Having taken the best judgment of those who know the problem, I am advised that the transmission of gas by high-pressure pipelines can be a very efficient method of moving energy. Therefore, there is a possibility which is not fully worked out of making substantial economies by basing the gas supply on large manufacturing units in the coalfields and piping gas to where it is wanted.
The present position is that the gas industry is studying the possibilities of a grid. My first impressions are that I would feel that the Lurgi process is possibly very well suited to it: first, because the capital costs of the Lurgi process are high and, therefore, the full benefit of the process is obtainable only from very large plants running on base load; and, secondly, because the process produces gas under pressure and, therefore, further compression to get it down the grid would not be necessary.
I will conclude my remarks on the possibility of a national grid by drawing the attention of the House to the last sentence of paragraph 37, on page 12, of "Gas Looks Ahead":
The Council is now undertaking an intensive study of the technical and economic aspects of a national grid in relation to new methods of production and supplies of gas.
One other development that might be closely connected with a national grid is the possibility of underground storage.

Because of the scale, and the cost, storage in a gas holder can meet only short-term fluctuations in demand, but there is certainly a high possibility, if the underground storage space could be discovered, that underground storage might enable the industry to store gas economically in the summer against winter demand, and thereby enable the industry to keep base-load plants in continual operation throughout the year.
I understand that for this storage it is necessary to find natural rock formations that will hold gas under pressure. This possibility may exist in the United Kingdom, but the only underground storage that we have so far discovered is in a unique exception—a salt cavity. The cavity, which has been specially washed out of rock salt, is at a depth of 1,300 ft. It has a volume of about 340,000 cubic ft., but as the gas stored in it is at a pressure of 440 lb. per sq. in. the volume of gas in the cavity is about 10 million cubic feet—a very substantial amount. If this kind of storage place could be found in other parts of the country a great deal of difference would be made to the industry's prospects. Other possibilities are being investigated in Hampshire and Kent, and one in Scotland, and as time goes on I hope to be able to tell the House of more developments.
Natural gas is a possibility that excited the industry, and all of us, some time ago but, frankly, I am not over-optimistic that we shall find large supplies of natural gas in this country. I understand that the only supply on any substantial scale is to be found in Yorkshire, and will supply part of the North-Eastern Gas Board's area at some time in the future. This, however, is on a relatively small scale, and I understand that there are very few prospects at the moment of finding it in more substantial quantities.
These needs for new developments in the industry underline very clearly the importance of the research that is being carried out. A fairly wide range of research is being carried out at present. There is study in many directions of high-pressure reactions of both coal and oil with steam, oxygen and hydrogen. I have already mentioned the Lurgi process. Another possibility that is being investigated is operating the Lurgi process at high temperatures, at which


the ash is removed as a slag so as to improve thermal efficiency.
Then there is the study of the enrichment of lean gas by methane, propane, butane and refinery gases, and by the hydrogenation of oil. Again, there is the possibility of hydrogenating coal to produce a complete town gas. Finally, there is, broadly, all the research on purifying gas, with the connected research aimed at trying to reduce the dangers which still exist and of which we are all aware; and research into the more efficient use of gas. All this effort is being made and, I hope, will be attended with success in the future.
To sum up, I would just say that our fuel policy, as I have announced several times—not to the complete satisfaction of every hon. Member—is based on freedom of choice. This does not mean holding back any of the competitors that may have achieved a temporary lead. I think that it means trying to help each competitor to compete as effectively as it can. Therefore, my conclusion is that if the gas idustry suggests developments that will clearly increase its competitive power, I find it very difficult to think of grounds on which such a request should be refused. As this is the whole object of this present Measure, I hope that the House will agree that the Bill should be read a Second time.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I was glad that the Minister explained Clause 2 of the Bill. From what he said, I understand that the liability will be about £180,000 per annum. I wonder whether he could further enlighten us on subsection (3) of Clause 2, which refers to
… expenses incurred by any other Government department in connection with the Ministry of Power …
Did the Minister's remarks cover that sort of contingency? We should certainly like to know whether we can expect additions to the £180,000 as the result of other Departments' activities.

Mr. Wood: I must make myself quite clear about the £180,000. At present, I can recover from the industry £110,000 out of the £180,000 that is spent on gas testing. The Bill would enable me to recover not £110,000, but the whole £180,000 from the industry, and the purpose of subsection (3) is to include such other Government Departments as

may be doing work connected with gas testing—I think that the Post Office has a part to play—for the expenditure on which it would be possible to recover the charges. I hope that that makes it clear.

Mr. Lee: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I take it that such charges in relation, say, to the Post Office, and so on, are really included in the £180,000, or whatever it is, to which he made reference.
We were very pleased to hear what we consider to be a most important announcement about the consultation now taking place between the chairmen of the coal and gas industries at the planning stage of new developments. I will refer to that again a little later. For the moment, I will just say that many of us have felt that there was not sufficient cooperation in this direction, and that, in consequence, the coal industry was not, on many occasions, fully aware of the results of the sort of plans that the Gas Council was undertaking.
The right hon. Gentleman has described to us a successful nationalised industry that started under very grave difficulties, but which has done a first-class job. The House, as a whole, should compliment the Gas Council and the area boards, as well as the employees of the Council, on that achievement. It is quite a feature of our discussions here on nationalised industries that when a Minister gives us an objective survey of the work of a nationalised industry that survey is in very marked contrast to the utterances of Conservative Members outside the House.
I looked at The Guardian only yesterday morning, and saw that the Leader of the House had visited Manchester at the weekend to speak to the Young Conservatives—in Manchester, of all places. I read that the Leader of the House thought that the approach to the Budget would be "typical of Conservative philosophy." I did not read that there was any wild enthusiasm on the part of the Young Conservatives at that announcement, possibly because the right hon. Gentleman did not tell them whether it was the Conservative philosophy that applies before or after a General Election. As he remembers from his own experience, that can be very different indeed.
The Leader of the House went on to say, according to The Guardian:
There would be no blanket of repression over the whole economy, nor would the Government risk removing the soul from industry as could be done by nationalisation. It would stick to a 'thoroughly competitive economy' and, if industries were in difficulties, ' adjust the balance ' where necessary.
That little question of adjusting the balance where necessary is concerning the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and myself very much these days. It has cost the country about £300 million in very recent times.
When I read that the Leader of the House himself says that the Government would not
… risk removing the soul from industry as could be done by nationalisation.
I wondered whether he has looked at paragraph 24 of "Gas Looks Ahead." There, we read that, because of changes —increased efficiency—the number of employees has been reduced by about 20,000, and that the industry, in close co-operation with the trade unions, has done everything in its power to find alternative employment for those rendered redundant, although, in many cases, instead of rendering them redundant it had found them alternative employment.
I wonder whether it is that sort of soullessness that the Leader of the House was referring to, or whether he has looked at the difference, for instance, between the way in which the National Coal Board now cushions redundancy and the "soulful" approach to it of the former private coal owners. It would really be a good thing if people like the Leader of the House stopped this silly political buccaneering and brought their utterances, when speaking in the country, more into line with the very thoughtful and constructive report which the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Power has given us this afternoon.
The Minister's report showed us an industry which has done a very good job in difficult conditions since nationalisation. The legislation before us proposes an extension of the Gas Council's borrowing power to enable the industrial programme to be carried out. I agree with something he said about the pamphlet, "Gas Looks Ahead". It has served a very good purpose by giving us

a picture of the state of the industry not only against the background of its work hitherto, but in the light of the development plan for the next six or seven years.
Read in conjunction with the Annual Report and Accounts of the Gas Council, it presents a picture of an outstandingly successful nationalised industry ably performing the task assigned to it under the Gas Act, 1948. It is well to remember what those tasks were. They were, among other things,
to develop and maintain an efficient co-ordinated and economical system of gas supply for the areas. … To develop and maintain the efficient, co-ordinated and economical production of coke. …To develop and maintain efficient methods of recovering by-products obtained in the process of manufacturing gas.
By any test which anyone can apply great progress has been made in all three.
The gas industry is a very old industry. I understand that Pall Mall was lit by gas as long ago as 1807, so the industry is well over 150 years old. Very great, changes were necessary upon nationalisation in the scattered, unco-ordinated set-up, with varying degrees of efficiency, to secure a modern and efficient co-ordinated structure. Moreover, nationalisation came at the end of one of the most destructive wars in history which meant inability to accomplish much in the way of capital development, repairs, and so forth. The huge sum of £465 million is the aggregate capital investment since vesting date, a sum which could probably never have been invested in this sort of industry had the Labour Government not had the foresight to nationalise it when they did.
The Gas Act, 1948, limited the borrowing powers of the industry to £250 million, excluding stock issued for the payment of compensation. We must always remember that, irrespective of ability to make profits or anything of that kind, this compensation still has to be met by the industry. In 1954, the limit was raised to £450 million. By that time, most of the deficiencies in plant capacity had been made good and, as "Gas Looks Ahead" points out, the sustained high demands upon the industry were fully met.
We should pause here to consider one of the basic reasons which led the Labour Government to decide to nationalise the gas industry and test by the performance of the industry whether the decision has


been justified. We all remember the background of the war damage to our industries and the fact that we had not been able to bring new plant into the country during the war. We realised then the need for a vastly increased industrial production from our manufacturing industries. In those conditions, with a Government determined to obtain the highest level of manufacturing productivity we possibly could, the first matter to be considered was how we could ensure a plentiful supply of coal and the things which flow from coal so that the modernisation of our manufacturing industries could go ahead without fear of shortages in power supplies.
First, we realised that without the nationalisation of the coal industry we could never have adequate supplies of coal to drive the new, modernised industries we wanted, and, secondly, we realised that there would have to be power produced from coal—gas, electricity, and so forth—in the necessary quantities.
By 1954, because of the structure of the nationalised power industries which the Labour Government brought into being, we were able to meet all the increased demands upon our power supplies, and that is ample proof of the correctness of the decisions about nationalisation which were made. We are able to see now that they have been fully justified by the results. By 1954–55, in spite of the increased demands of the manufacturing industries, the gas industry was able to meet all demands made on it.
Since nationalisation, the demand for gas has risen from an annual rate of 2,328 million therms in 1949–50 to 2,605 million therms in 1958–59, an increase of 12 per cent. over that period. Plant capacity has been enlarged from 2,060 million cu. ft., or 9·7 million therms to 2,532 million cu. ft., or 12 million therms, in March, 1959. During the same period, obsolete and inefficient plant with a daily capacity of 700 million cu. ft., or 3·3 million therms, has been replaced, and no less than 22,000 miles of new mains have been laid. As the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, many obsolete and uneconomic works have been closed. The number of works has been reduced from 1,050 to 463 in March, 1959.
Paragraph 440 of the Annual Report and Accounts for 1958–59 shows that the

cumulative effect of the increases in efficiency since vesting date is that, in 1958–59, the industry required the equivalent of 2½ million tons of coal less than it would have required had the output of gas and other products been produced at the efficiency of 1948. Although many of us are worried about the effect upon coal, efficiency of the type which that statement indicates surely justifies everything which was put into the Gas Act, 1948, which the party opposite, keeping us up night after night, did all it could to oppose. In paragraph 382 of the 1956–57 Report, we see that, whereas increased costs totalled £135 million in a year, the industry had increased its charges by £120 million, or £15 million less than the increases in costs.
In this respect, it is interesting to refer to what was said by Sir Harold Smith and his team of experts in the supplement to the Financial Times of 17th November last. I notice that Sir Harold himself tells us that
One of the major factors in bringing about these improvements has been the opportunity which nationalisation gave of extending gas grid systems.
I do not want to go on quoting. I could make a speech on these quotations alone. I only hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will realise the error of their ways and will now, in retrospect, see how foolish they were to oppose the far-seeing wisdom of the Labour Government in the days when we decided upon these great changes.
The largest increase in sales during the past ten years has been to industrial consumers. This, of course, ties up with what I was saying about one of the basic reasons for nationalisation being to enable industry to expand. During this period, an expansion of 30 per cent. has taken place in industrial use and, for the period under review, the industry forecasts the same rate of expansion. I wonder whether the industry is taking an over-cautious view here. We are, I think, in a period when industrial production can greatly increase.
During the past year, we saw an increase of 10 per cent. I do not suggest that it will continue at 10 per cent. per annum, but the Gas Council is estimating that there will be an increase in industrial production of 3 per cent. per annum. I should regard it as an


abysmal failure if we went on from now at only 3 per cent. per annum. I have suggested before to the right hon. Gentleman that he should have prepared an equation, bringing together what will be required in increased power supplies and what is estimated in respect of increased industrial production, but we have not yet had this.
When discussing this matter some time ago with somebody who should know, I heard it suggested that an estimated 6 per cent. increase in industrial production would require about a 3·6 per cent. increase in power. If that is so it may well be that the 3 per cent. per annum increase upon which the Gas Council is now calculating will turn out to be insufficient for the increase in production which we hope to get. It may be that it would agree to have a look at all that.
The net result of the figures I have given—I apologise for having to weary the House with so many figures—is that the overall thermal efficiency of production, measured by the ratio of thermal output of gas, coke breeze, and tar to thermal input of coal and oil rose from 72 per cent. in 1948 to 77·7 per cent. in 1958–59.
It is interesting to see that the industry now believes that it can successfully compete with electricity in space heating and matters of that kind. We are moving through a very strange period indeed, for, while Tory Governments can win elections on the cry of more competition between private industries based on the profit motive, and then proceed to eliminate competition and use public money to subsidise them, very real competition grows hotter each year between the nationalised industries, such as gas and electricity, with atomic energy coming along apace.
The right hon. Gentleman has a very wide range of industries under his wing. It is strange to see that the only one that apparently needs cosseting and cushioning is the so-called privately owned steel industry as we see in the case of Colvilles, where public money has to be handed over in the way that it is.
In paragraphs 18 to 22 of "Gas Looks Ahead", and in the articles in the Financial Times of 17th November, 1959, to which I have referred, we see the extent of research being undertaken by the Gas Council and we obtain a good

view of the future of the industry. Sir Harold Smith gives as first priority in research the development of
… methods of gas manufacture which will enable use to be made of the cheaper and poorer grades of coal, which are at present in ample supply.
Of course, as the Minister said, the industry aims at complete gasification of these low-grade coals. That may bring about problems so far as coke is concerned and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say something about that when he replies to the debate. The Gas Council has already achieved satisfactory laboratory results in processes designed to substitute hydrogena-tion for gasification which ensure a higher calorific value and a higher quality of purity.
Nationalisation has enabled the industry to plan for a national grid which enables gas produced by new methods to be carried long distances and give a far wider circulation with a reduction in distributive costs. I notice that in the same issue of the Financial Times Sir Henry Jones, who, I am sure, we all wish well in taking over the chairmanship of the Gas Council, contributes a valuable article on the development of the national grid. It is interesting to compare these chapters on research and the wholehearted attitude of the gas industry's approach to its research problems and the money it is prepared to sink in research with the lack of initiative and rather half-hearted and lamentable attempts to look at these problems of research which one sees from other industries.
To quote the shipping industry, we see in the Annual Report of the Chamber of Shipping these words:
The Government has not hesitated to spend very substantial sums of money for research in air transport. Let it be bold where the sea is concerned and spend accordingly.
The Chamber's president, Mr. Hugh Hogarth, said in his address:
We must look to Her Majesty's Government for understanding and action. We shall ask for it not as suppliants, but as a vigorous industry, which, in these so-called enlightened days, must have the Government behind it.
When we look at this kind of thing, and the atmosphere which is being created, we realise that it is entirely due to the Government's policy on this matter. In contradistinction to nationalised industry the Government's policy


of doles to private industry has produced an atmosphere in which ever increasing numbers are becoming pitifully undignified creatures, the tools of whose trade are incomplete without a begging bowl and a political pamphlet on the sturdy independence of competitive private enterprise.
Despite all the ballyhoo that we read in the Press about Labour policies, I think that the real problem which is becoming more clear day by day is presented by Tories who refuse to be Tories and whose political legitimacy the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South was calling in question the other day.
Attempts are being made to describe nationalisation as part of a "philosophy of poverty" steming from conditions of other days. We on this side of the House have never accepted that. Indeed, as we see in this industry, in electricity, coal and the atomic energy industry, to quote only the power industries, it has proved to be the only modern method of organisation which can succeed amid false political clamour of Government supporters who seek to denigrate it.
I think that in the first days after the war the main success of these nationalised power industries was that they enabled unemployment to become un-necessary. As they have gone on with ever increasing success it has enabled us to ensure that large increase in production in manufacturing industries can take place without creating power shortages. I believe that the reports have shown that integration within the gas industry has proceeded very well and produced excellent results. Surely, to obtain maximum results from nationalisation of our fuel industries, there must be a far closer working relationship and integration of their programmes and plans in order that the nation can secure full advantage from their activities, which is why we welcome so much the statement that the Minister of Power made to us today.
This integrating of programmes of nationalised industries requires a political decision by the Government. They are not issues upon which the boards can take decisions, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further in considering getting together the chairmen of the two boards and trying to

integrate to a far closer degree the programmes of the power industries as we see them now.
I turn to the difficult problem of the increasing use of oil and methane. I know that one of the objectives of the Gas Council is to secure the production of the cheapest form of gas it can get. From every commercial point of view it is, of course, a very proper aim. But I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that because of the nature of the problems that this may throw up in the future the time has come for the Government to set up a committee of experts to examine methods used by international oil companies in marketing their products.
Recently, with hon. Members on both sides of the House, I visited Germany, where competition between oil and coal is positively primitive in its intensity. It is not a question of nationalisation in the German coal industry. It is privately owned. We learned from the private coal owners in Germany that so intense has competition become that oil is sold at a price well below that asked outside Germany. We were told that even if there were a tax of 30 Deutschemarks per ton on oil it will only bring the price of oil to that obtaining now in other parts of the world. In other words, the price is not based on the economics of oil, but on a determination to capture a single market and to force the coal mines in that market to close. Once closed, they cannot be reopened.
It was suggested by those with whom we discussed the matter that a wide range of the oil companies' activities—

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I was a member of the delegation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Is it not right to assume that coal owners in Germany own approximately one-third of the oil refining capacity?

Mr. Lee: It is not part of my case to discuss the ramifications of private capitalism. Heaven forbid that I should trespass on that hallowed ground.
Owners in the coal industry in Germany told us, as the hon. Gentleman will agree, that the competition against which they are now asked to sustain themselves is not based on economics, but on the wide international ramifications of the movements of the oil companies, who can pick a market and


reduce their prices well below the economic price and, as it were, subsidise themselves by the upward movement of prices in other parts of the world where they are operating. Once they have established a position where coal mines are forced to close, and coal is unable to compete, rises in the price of oil take place.

Mr. James Griffiths: That is characteristic of the history of the oil industry. It did precisely the same in America and elsewhere. That is why we object to such competition with coal miners in this country.

Mr. Lee: My right hon. Friend has anticipated what I was about to say. This is now happening in Germany. There is more intensive competition than has yet been seen here. I say nothing against it if it is based on economics, but hon. Members will do well to consider the position, because in the end it will probably affect them as much as the people represented by myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Harold Finch: It is a method of dumping oil.

Mr. Lee: It is a method of dumping oil which need not cause losses to the companies concerned because they can recoup themselves in other parts of the world.
If this can happen in Germany and elsewhere, why should we feel that it will not happen here? I see no reason why it should not happen here. Paragraph 31 of "Gas Looks Ahead" indicates that by 31st March, 1966, the total daily capacity of various types of oil gas-making plant is expected to increase to 340 million cubic feet, or 17 million therms per day. By that stage many coal mines may have been closed, thereby causing great social problems in the areas affected. I wonder whether, at that stage, oil prices will again begin to rise. If so, the economics of the gas industry may well go haywire.
I assure the House that we are not looking backward and demanding a return to obsolete methods. Neither this party nor the N.U.M. bases its philosophy on that. We ask that the indigenous products of this country shall be looked at by both parties in this House to ensure that we do not put our-

selves in a position where we may not only be unable to use our indigenous products because the coal mines are closed, but be at the mercy of tacticians who are rather unscrupulous in the way that they corner the market. That is why we suggest that an expert committee should be set up which is capable of analysing the ramifications of the international oil companies. If such a committee's report shows that I am wrong, I should be very happy to apologise for what I have said.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The argument of the hon. Member was first put forward in this House in February last year. It has been related half a dozen times since. We on this side are all well aware of the problems and the anxieties felt in the mining communities, but to state a problem is not to solve it. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is no good my right hon. Friend looking at this problem? We all know the problem. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House his solution, by legislative or administrative action, so that we may know exactly where the Labour Party stands?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that to state the problem is not to solve it. I have read his speeches on the coal industry for a long time, and at last I have found something with which I can agree. He has stated the problem so often, but he has not yet given us a solution. I am offering a solution. I am saying that competition based on economics is not something to which we object. We object to competition which, in the classical Tory phrase, is unfair competition. It is not based on economics, but on the manoeuvring of the market by the great international oil companies.

Mr. Nabarro: If this unfair competition exists, or is likely to exist, will the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to what legislative or administrative instrument he would employ to put an end to any unfair competition that may exist? That is what I want to know.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman's own Government passed legislation which was supposed to take care of unfair practices in industry. We have been told that anti-dumping legislation can be applied. I would discriminate,


although the Germans do not, between our own refined oil and imported oil. I said in the speech in February, to which the hon. Member referred, that I had certain priorities with regard to our indigenous products. I said that coal must come first, that fuel oil from our own refineries should come second, and that imported oil should come third. I discriminate between our own oil and imported oil. I would tax very heavily fuel oil which is imported as fuel oil.

Mr. Nabarro: That is exactly what I wanted the hon. Gentleman to say. He has now declared himself. Does he not realise that in the production of gas and the derivatives of gas very large quantities of imported fuel oil are used? Does the hon. Gentleman wish to place an import duty on the raw material of the gas industry, thereby making it increasingly difficult for it to compete with a mammoth competitor, electricity? Surely that would be nonsense.

Mr. Lee: That is a false analogy. There is more fuel oil in this country now than the gas industry can use. It is a question of increasing our capacity to use it, not of increasing the amount of fuel oil required. The hon. Member's analogy is completely false.

Mr. Nabarro: I will reply to the hon. Gentleman later.

Mr. Lee: We are considering today the results of a first-class effort by a successful nationalised industry. I am not saying that we have reached anything like the efficiency which is possible. There is still much to be done. One of the long-term objectives is the elimination of dangerous gases. A solution to this problem must be found as soon as possible. I notice that the industry is investigating the condition of gas fittings in hundreds of thousands of homes. There are nearly 13 million users of gas, and here again much remains to be done. The industry has produced cookers, specially for old people, which cut off the supply of gas if the light fails. This is a splendid development. I am sure that the House would agree that money spent on research for that is money very well spent.
My hon. Friends especially will note that the success which the gas industry

and other nationalised industries have achieved has been achieved despite the fact that the legislation which we passed does not as yet permit of all grades of employees being given a genuine opportunity to bring their knowledge and enthusiasm to bear on the problems of management. I believe that in this respect we have much thinking to do.
From experience in industry, I know that there is no person more possessed of industrial genius than the British working man. I am sure that in the future we must consider how we can bring more and more the people within our nationalised industries to realise that they have a stake in their industry, that it is part of themselves and that they can give of their enthusiasm and abilities to the success of their own industry. As yet, we have not answered the challenge, and we must do much thinking before we know the answer.
There is also the paradox in that the success of the gas industry has brought a great social problem in the coalfields. The President of the Board of Trade was in the North-East the other day where he told the local authorities that they should try to sell themselves better. Local authorities there or any other part of the country must, of course, do everything within their power to acquaint the nation with what they have to offer in skilled labour, facilities, and so on, but for the President of the Board of Trade to go to Sunderland or any other part of the North-East Development Area and suggest that, irrespective of what the Government do, the local authorities can do everything in the way of selling themselves and bringing ample work to their people is nonsense, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. I suggest that as a concomitant of the success of these industries we should have a more positive Government policy to eliminate the social problems which this success brings in its train.
We have discussed the great progress of the industry. We have shown that it is based on the economic possibilities which come with nationalisation. We suggest that it is a way in which we can bring economic liberty as the natural successor to the political liberties that we now enjoy. Nationalisation has nothing to do with the philosophies of poverty, about which we have heard so much. Those who deploy


such arguments merely reveal their own poverty of philosophy.
I feel that we are now able to claim that the Conservative Party has badly misled the country in claiming that nationalisation has been a failure, and that in the whole range of industries for which the Minister is responsible we can claim very great and far-reaching successes. It is in that knowledge that we feel that the great legislation of the Labour Government of 1945 to 1951 has been amply justified.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I ask for the indulgence of hon. Members on this the first occasion on which I have addressed the House. I hope that I shall cause no provocation so that the House may extend the courtesy which is usually extended to a maiden speaker.
If I may begin on a personal note, my qualification for speaking in the debate rests on the fact that I am one of the few hon. Members who have been through a national college, the National Foundry College, and my foundry qualifications, which include fuel technology, follow a study of natural sciences and metallurgy.
My experience which justifies my speaking today arises from the fact that for twelve years I have been closely connected with factory management and commercial management in the steel industry, the steel foundry industry and allied industries in Sheffield. It is my hope that, whatever my contribution this afternoon and, for that matter, on future occasions may lack in oratorical prowess, I may make up for it by drawing from my personal experience in industry and commerce, particularly in the City of Sheffield.
My constituency, Hallam, is named after one of the shires within a shire— Hallamshire. It is in the south-west of Yorkshire and embraces most of Sheffield. Its name, like that of Sheffield, occurs in the Domesday Book. The drill hall of the Hallamshire Battalion of the York and Lanes Regiment is in my constituency. The regiment is a well-known one. It celebrated its centenary last year, has served the country well in two world wars, and in the last war saw service in Norway, Iceland and France, among other countries.
The Cutlers Company, in Hallamshire is well known to many in the country as well as to the occupants of the Front Benches in this House. Sheffield is a city which has a tradition. It is a city which has a civic pride, and it is proud of its products. The tradition has been carried on from father to son from generation to generation in all walks of life. Just as I am a member of the Cutlers Company in Sheffield, so was my father a master cutler, so was my grandfather a master cutler, and so were two of my great-grandfathers master cutlers.
Just as I have lived in Hallam, so did my father, so did my grandfather, so did my great-grandfather, and so did my great-great-grandfather. Just as I have worked in Hallam and in Sheffield in the tool and steel industry, so did my father and my grandfather; and I will not go back any further because my antecedents go back to the early seventeenth century when my family was connected with the cutlery industry.
My purpose this afternoon is to support the statements made and the programme outlined by the Minister. It is my conviction, based on experience in Sheffield, that the gas industry has a great future. Why not? The gas industry in, say, the U.S.A. is gaining ground. The sales of natural gas there are going ahead at a faster rate than the sales of liquid fuel. Gas could provide a useful outlet, as the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) suggested, for the indigenous fuels that lie beneath us, but there are certain facts that we should consider. In 1956, the gas industry used 28 million tons of coal. Last year, the figure dropped to 22 million tons. My comments will be based on this trend.
My reasons for intervening in the debate are, however, fivefold. The first reason is that the gas industry of Sheffield is one of the largest industries supplying industrial users. The capacity taken by industries in Sheffield is 20,000 million cubic feet per year, which is an interesting figure in comparison with the storage capacity mentioned by the Minister.
My second reason is to ask the House to take note of the changes which are taking place in the steel industry, particularly in the industry in Sheffield. Electric arc furnaces of 80 tons and now 150 tons, some using oxygen injection, will be replacing the older open hearth,


whether gas-fired or oil-fired, furnaces in the steel industry. This means that ancillary plant, coke ovens and producer gas plants will become surplus to the requirements of the steel industry and may have to be demolished. This also means that gas, a by-product of the steel works, will no longer be available to supplement the local gas grids in Sheffield and other areas.
My third reason is concerned with the impact of the Clean Air Act in a City like Sheffield and also the need to increase fuel efficiency in an area such as Sheffield. Furnace practice is changing. For instance, coal-fired reheating furnaces, whether they be for forge, rolling mill or press, are now being converted into gas or oil. But, as the Minister mentioned, gas is in competition with oil at present, and the gas industry will have to fight.
Sheffield is renowned for its manufacture of high-grade steels required by toolmaking, engineering, aircraft and allied industries. This requires accurate heat treatment to ensure proper physical properties. It also requires accurate atmosphere control and temperature control. It has been my own experience and responsibility to specify, purchase, instal and operate heat treatment furnaces in the steel industry. At that time technical considerations decided that gas would be the most suitable fuel, but, at the same time, economic considerations caused me, in company with other factory managers, to choose oil for factory heating. That decision was taken at the time of Suez.
Fourthly, I intervene in the debate because Sheffield University is an active and expanding university. If I may digress, my constituency embraces part of the university and on behalf of many citizens in Sheffield I should like to express my appreciation to the Minister of the excellent services rendered by his father as Chancellor of Sheffield University. He served Sheffield as he served Oxford. As a member of the Council of Sheffield University, I would also assure the Leader of the House that Sheffield will give him as warm a welcome when he takes up his duty as Chancellor of Sheffield University as that which Oxford University will give to the Prime Minister. It is my association with the Department of Fuel Technology

and those advising the industry in Sheffield which leads me to make some of my remarks.
My fifth and last reason for intervening is again a personal one. This week, I have to decide how to heat my home. I am mindful of a letter from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Commander Kerans), in the Financial Times, which pointed out certain factors of interest to me. I am aware that a decision on domestic heating is not based only on logical considerations, but my short list has on it oil-fired central heating and gas-fired central heating as the last two yet to be decided upon.
My contribution to the debate will be to illustrate the problems which face the domestic and industrial consumer. Gas is in competition with oil. The oil industry is attracting the consumer by service and a sales campaign and it could be taking markets from gas, as I will show. I welcome the Minister's remarks. If gas is made competitive with oil, that is all to the good, but I would emphasise, as my right hon. Friend has emphasised, that the consumer must have freedom of choice.
The problems facing the industrial user are many. Companies in Sheffield who have dispersed factories are paying gas bills which are 15 per cent. higher as a result of a decision connected with non-aggregation of meters. Quarterly assessments have also been a blow. The oil companies, on the other hand, are prepared to aggregate the oil consumed, whether factories are dispersed in one city or throughout the country. This places oil in a stronger competitive position than gas. Local industry has pointed this out to the East Midlands Gas Consultative Council and it has stressed that although industry has improved its efficiency in reheating and heat treatment furnaces, it expects improvements in the gas industry.
At this time in Sheffield, 30 firms, because of the Clean Air Act, are considering converting from coal to either gas-fired or oil-fired furnaces. One firm has converted its forge and rolling mills, on economic grounds only, to oil-firing. This could represent £15,000 of sales in one small factory alone. Another factory has 36 furnaces due for conversion. The first trials on oil have been so


encouraging that 19 are now in process of conversion and in all probability the full 36 will be converted to oil.
Similar problems face the domestic consumer. He is offered attractive hire-purchase schemes and is subject to good selling by the oil companies. As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools has mentioned, unless the consumer has carried out exhaustive inquiries he is unable to distinguish between the advantages of oil and gas. Attempts have been made to evaluate the differentials between oil, gas and solid fuels. One publication, Which'?, states that oil in an atomising boiler can be rated at 1s. 1d. per useful therm, while oil in a vaporising boiler is 1s. 2d. per useful therm, anthracite 1s. 2d. and gas at 1s. 9d. per useful therm, but this could be a misleading comparison because the gas is rated at the London thermal rate, which does not compare with the domestic tariff of the East Midlands Gas Board, which is 12½d. per therm.
As for domestic oil-fired heating, one manufacturing firm has provided graphs for the use of its would-be customers. It would seem that the capital cost of an oil-fired domestic unit may be double that of a gas-fired unit. The running cost of an oil-fired domestic unit could be between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. below that of a gas-fired unit. The overall cost of an oil-fired or gas-fired unit, dependent upon the size of the furnace, could be exactly the same over a period of five to nine years, but after that period oil could prove the cheaper medium for domestic heating. These are figures from one survey, but there are definitely other views being expressed in the country. At the end of the day, however, it is not price but convenience and other factors that would persuade the domestic user.
In deciding future policy, the industrial and domestic consumer should be informed of several factors. The known oil reserves in the world could be seriously depleted by the turn of the century, but I am given to understand that the coal reserves of this country could last us for 500 years.
Finally, there is the effect of sulphur dioxide, a hazard which, unlike smoke, cannot be seen. It is corrosive and acidic and, in one instance, during the fog in London eight years ago the high death-

rate has been attributed to sulphur dioxide. The sulphur dioxide content in the air in an industrial city like Sheffield is rising and it should be borne in mind that gas, whether produced from coal, oil gasification, whether inported, or produced as a by-product of our refineries, has a sulphur content which is limited by Statute.
I welcome the short-term measures outlined by the Minister, whether they be for the development of natural gas, or firedamp in the collieries, whether for the gasification of oil, or whether related to the pioneer project of bringing in methane from overseas. The public would like to see the consumption of gas increased. This would cause the price to come down because of increased volume. It would be a welcome assurance to the public to be told that the manufacture of gas from oil would reduce prices. The long-term measures—the integration of mines, the high-pressure gas grid, underground storage, the location of gas plants near collieries and, finally, the total gasification of coal—are to be welcomed.
Many people wonder whether £1½ million a year spent on research and development, particularly in connection with the Lurgi and allied processes, is enough at the present time, because it is by developing these processes that we ensure the future of gas, using coal as a raw material. I agree with the Minister that there is no object in curtailing the use of the gas industry, because it is uneconomic. Therefore, I support my right hon. Friend's proposals because they will help in the long-term to make the gas industry competitive. If the industry becomes competitive now, using oil as well as developing means of using our own coal in the future, a useful outlet will have been found for the nation's coal and will help to keep our mines busy. I therefore support the Second Reading of the Bill.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. George Darling: I am glad, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have called on me to perform the pleasant duty of congratulating my neighbour in Sheffield, the hon. Member for Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), on having made an excellent maiden speech. I am sure the whole House will agree that he has come through what we all know to be a grim ordeal with great credit.
I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman made a reasonable speech. He and I clashed in the General Election, but we have discussed things in a more reasonable frame of mind since. I knew that in view of his association with the steel industry he was certain to make a good and reasonable contribution to our debate, because nobody in the steel industry could get away with anything less. It is an industry which imposes a high standard upon all who take part in it and serve it. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has made a deep study of the gas industry. Because he shares many of my views, which he expressed towards the end of his speech, I can say without question that it was a very intelligent speech indeed. Even hon. Members who do not share our views will agree, I am sure, that we have had a thoughtful speech from the hon. Gentleman and that we look forward to more contributions from him in the future.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned, as did both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), the development of the gas grid. I recollect, as I am sure does the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), that this was one proposal in the discussions we had as long as ten years ago which many of us advocated. We said that the best way to develop our indigenous fuel resources would be to carbonise, to gasify, coal and to develop a gas grid, switching over to gas as far as we could both domestic and industrial heating and industrial prime movers. We believed that gas should be used not only in furnaces for steam raising but also for developing gas turbines as prime movers, as far as they could be developed on producer gas.
I regret that progress in this direction has been very slow. As the hon. Member for Hallam said, quite rightly, we must also consider the improvements which need to be made in the production of gas, so that it can become cheaper both to domestic consumers and to industrialists who may wish to take more gas suppplies.
On the question of oil, the Minister said that in future the chairmen of the Gas Council and the National Coal Board will get together and will discuss developments in the gas industry which involve switching over to oil. I am sure the

whole House will be glad to learn of this, but I hope that the consideration of the use of oil by the industry will not stop at discussions between the two chairmen. There are other people very much interested in the development of gas from oil, and those are the people who have to live near a gas-from-oil plant. It is about this aspect of the matter that I wish to speak.
There may be differences of opinion on the economics and on the technical aspects of gas-from-oil production, but there can be no difference of opinion about the social effects of a gas-from-oil plant in a residential area. They are intolerable. They make life completely unbearable for the local residents. My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) intended to raise this issue, because he has one of the first of these plants in his constituency. Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is away ill with bronchitis. Therefore, as I am threatened with one of these plants in my constituency, we have discussed the matter between us and I am raising it for him as far as it affects his constituency.
I have seen pictures of the plant established at Laughton Common in the Rother Valley constituency near Rotherham, which show the damage it is doing to the houses near by. They are continuously covered with a pall of oily vapour, and the residents have to put up with nauseating fumes while the plant is working. The local residents also complain of the oily mist that is sprayed not only on the houses close to the gas works but also quite a distance away. It gets on to the paintwork and the windows and is difficult to remove. They also complain of the intolerable noise which comes from this plant which, in the words of one resident in the village of Dinning-ton, near Laughton Commons, blares over the village for twenty-four hours a day. In fact, one old-age pensioner is reported as saying that he thought he was almost stone deaf but he can hear the plant and it stops him from sleeping at night.
The lives of the residents have apparently been made so miserable that they now time the plant's operations. At eight minute intervals jets of steam spray vapour over the houses close by and according to the reports made to me a thick yellow smoke pours out and hangs over the homes of these people, giving


off an objectionable smell. The local residents also complain that as the mist condenses greasy water comes down on to the ground and has flooded the backyards of several of their houses.
A reporter on a local paper interviewed the residents who live close to the gasworks. One said that the plant—
… is enough to send anyone mad. Taking everything into account, noise, steam and oil, our houses are hardly fit to live in.
Another said that all the back windows of her home were covered with this grease which she could not remove. Another who lives on the opposite side of the road away from the plant said that the oil marks on his house were almost impossible to remove. Yet another said that the greasy water sometimes covered his back yard.
If the East Midlands Gas Board, which is the body responsible for putting up that plant, had any real sense of its social obligations, it would have listened to the representations made to the Board before the plant was installed, because the local council made such representations. Those representations were also reported in the local paper, as was the council meeting when the matter was brought up.
It is clear that the representations made to the East Midlands Gas Board by the local council were wiped on one side and that the board did not take the slightest notice of them. The council said that if the plant were sited where it was eventually put and where it was decided to build it at the beginning, the people on the other side of the street would suffer the nuisance which I have described. The council suggested that the board should offer to buy those houses and help to rehouse the residents elsewhere. I am sure that in all the circumstances that was the best solution.
However, the council was given an assurance that local residents had nothing to worry about and that a gas-from-oil plant would not emit any more fumes, smoke, noise or dirt than an ordinary producer gas plant such as we have in an ordinary gas works. That assurance has been proved to be incorrect, and it is clear that the board was leading the council and local residents up the garden.
I urge the Minister to inquire into the social nuisance caused by gas-from-oil plants and not to leave it to local gas boards to give assurances of this kind,

which are apparently meaningless. It would be a very grave matter if any more of these plants were built, because many thousands of people who live near gas works will be affected.
I urge the Minister to inquire into the social consequences of the building of these plants. I hope that he will tell the Gas Council quite plainly that public money ought not to be used to cause social nuisances of this kind. Many industries which are producers of obnoxious smells or noise—and we had a discussion about noise on Friday—and which cause social nuisances of some kind, because of the nature of their operations, have to obey rules and regulations designed to abate the nuisance, and sometimes they have to be situated in more or less isolated areas. We do not allow slaughterhouses, for instance, to operate close to residential areas. It is about time that we had similar rules for undertakings of this kind.

Mr. Nabarro: We had protracted debates on this kind of matter on the clean air legislation of 1956. The hon. Member will remember that his side of the House warmly supported the view of the then Minister of Housing and Local Government that, under Section 17 of what is now the Clean Air Act, full responsibility for dealing with nuisance of this kind would rest with the Alkali Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. As this is evidently an aggravated nuisance, why cannot someone ring up the alkali inspector and ask him to do something about it?

Mr. Darling: I am afraid that the hon. Member has not been told how those provisions are working out. Surely he is not under the impression that we have not made representations. The alkali inspector has said that he has no authority over gas works.

Mr. Nabarro: That is wholly wrong. It is laid down in the Statute that he has full authority over gas works. We wrote it into the Act. If the inspector is not doing his job, why is he not reported to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government for early disciplinary action?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Member has not caught up with the local discussions and debates about the application of these powers. As he knows, Sheffield was one of the first cities to try to put


this sort of thing right, and we are still fighting it out with the Minister. We have taken the course suggested by the hon. Member, but we are still finding out who has authority to act. I assure the hon. Member that the Minister is not giving us a great deal of help. The case I have described is not in the Sheffield area, but in the constituency of my hon Friend the Member for Rother Valley, but two similar plants are promised—"threatened" might be a better word—for the Sheffield area—the Wincobank Gas Works and the Neepsend Gas Works in my constituency. I assure the Minister that, if those reports are correct, there will be a great deal of trouble in Sheffield if our constituents have to put up with the kind of social nuisance caused by the gas works at Laugh ton Common.
I have already taken up with the East Midlands Gas Board the question of the nuisance caused not only by smoke but by grit, dirt and dust from the Neepsend Gas Works. The Gas Board has received deputations very courteously and tried to remedy some of the easily remedied defects, but the board has not dealt satisfactorily with our main complaints and it is clear that the East Midlands Gas Board, like other gas boards, will go ahead with its schemes whatever the social consequences.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton pointed out, there are defects in the Gas Act. My hon. Frend mentioned worker representation in management. Another defect is that the board appears to have no obligation to seek planning permission for developments of this kind before going ahead. Not only should there be discussions between the chairmen of the Gas Council and the National Coal Board about developments of this kind, but gas boards should be obliged to consult local authorities before such developments are undertaken.
It is quite wrong that living conditions should be made intolerable by developments of this sort, and I hope that we can get the Minister to put some pressure on the Gas Council, because many boards seem to 'behave without a proper sense of social responsibility. I appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House—because this is not a party matter—for their support and help in urging the Minister to request the Gas

Council to instruct gas boards to discuss these matters with local authorities before developments of this kind take place.
In addition to those discussions, we should also be given a better idea of the cost of gas-from-oil plants and their economic results, because if there is no great saving in cost in the production of gas by this method, then the social consequences must outweigh any margin of economy which may be in favour of the use of oil—and we have not had any indication that there is such a margin. I urge the Minister to tell the Gas Council not to proceed with more of these plants, not only because of their social nuisance, but because the costs have not yet been thoroughly examined. I am not convinced that there is any saving, but I am convinced that the social consequences of continuing with these plants will be disastrous for many people who are unfortunate enough to live close to gas works.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: My first and very happy duty this afternoon is most warmly and sincerely to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) upon a magnificent maiden speech—especially so because he brought to his subject an expert technological knowledge of so many aspects of our fuel and power industries, the economics associated with them and, in particular, the gas and carbonisation industries with which we are concerned this afternoon. We have regular debates on the nationalised fuel and power industries and their many associated problems, and I hope that my hon. Friend's unique knowledge of this wide and complex field will be available to hon. Members on both sides of the House on many future occasions.
I want to preface the main body of my speech by correcting the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) with respect to the functions of the Alkali Inspectorate of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I would direct him at once to the Beaver Committee's Report—Cmd. 9322— which investigated the question of air pollution and upon which the Clean Air Act, 1956, was based. If he will search out Section 17 of that Act, he will find enshrined in it almost the exact words


which were written into the Beaver Committee's Report in connection with the scheduled processes which are the special responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
Among those special responsibilities are emissions into the atmosphere from gas works, works for the manufacture of coal gas, water gas, carburetted water gas or oil gas for distribution to the general public. The hon. Member for Hillsborough should take the same action in this regard as I regularly take in respect of nuisances with which the Alkali Inspectorate should be concerned. First, I blast the appropriate alkali inspector, and if I get no response from him, or if they are too thin on the ground, I blast my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government as being the responsible Minister. I commend that course of action to the hon. Member.

Mr. Darling: As the hon. Member is obviously a much better blaster than hon. Members on this side of the House, will he help us by blasting his right hon. Friend in this matter, because we have not been able to do anything?

Mr. Nabarro: I cannot set myself up as a universal provider in all these matters. I have not yet qualified for the salary which is normally payable to the Leader of the Opposition. In matters of this kind, hon. Members opposite should put down Questions addressed to the Minister of Housing and Local Government and not blame the Gas Council or the gas boards. The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) has often talked to me on similar matters affecting power stations.
My right hon. Friend has my full support for the Measure which he has introduced. There are only one or two aspects of the finances of the gas boards upon which I want to dwell for a few moments before passing to the more practical topic of the pursuit of clean air policy and the provision of appropriate fuels by the gas boards for the implementation of that policy.
I want, first, to deal with the organisation of the gas industry. The author of nationalisation in this case—the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well)—is to be complimented upon the structure which he devised for the indus-

try. Although he was the author of the Gas Act, 1948, he was not Minister of Fuel and Power when it was taken through the House, but I give him all the praise due to him for the fashion in which he designed the organisation. It is because the organisation was correctly designed that the industry has secured very little attention of a critical kind in this House. There has rarely been a grave criticism of the gas industry in the last ten years. There have been minor criticisms, but nothing of much substance.
The industry has succeeded largely because the managerial units have been organised to an optimum size and because the twelve area gas boards are almost entirely autonomous and are responsible direct to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power and not to the Gas Council. There is a loose, nonfunctional organisation at the centre, called the Gas Council, which comprises a full-time chairman, a full-time deputy chairman and twelve members, each of whom is the chairman of an area board.
I repeat these facts, not because they are unknown to hon. Members, but because a moral is contained in this story. That is the organisation we require for the railways. I should like to see six operating railway companies, entirely autonomous, paying their way taking year with year, with a loose, non-functional organisation at the centre. When we next debate the reorganisation of the railways, I shall commend the gas industry organisation. I see that you are on the point of rising to remind me that the debate is about the gas industry and not about railways, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I could not forbear praising the gas industry organisation and its author— and I rarely praise him—and drawing an analogy, which I believe is important in the affairs of our nationalised industries, in its application to railway matters.
I now turn to the question of finances. This House has a happy habit of embracing certain principles in regard to the creation of committees of inquiry of all kinds. Those inquiries having occupied the full-time attention of fairly large numbers of trusty and experienced public servants, and their reports, often voluminous and nearing the status and stature of the report of the Royal Commission, containing many recommendations, having been published, the House promptly takes scant notice of them.

Mr. Tom Brown: Mr. Tom Brown (Ince) indicated assent.

Mr. Nabarro: I am glad to se that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) so warmly supports me.

Mr. Brown: History records that fact.

Mr. Nabarro: I am good at history.
I refer particularly to one of the most valuable reports of a Departmental committee of inquiry published in the last few years, in the context of the principal competitor of the gas industry, namely, the electricity supply industry. This is Command 9672, published two years ago and commonly referred to as the Herbert Committee's Report. Because electricity is one of the principal competitors of gas, this very important Committee, including a member of the Trades Union Congress, made certain important recommendations concerning the provision of new capital for the nationalised gas and electricity boards.
I wonder whether the Parliamentary Secretary has read this Report. If not, I commend to him the contents of paragraphs 347 and 348, in the cantext of this debate. Hon. Members generally might study its words of wisdom. Paragraph 347 says:
We have previously drawn attention to certain fundamental differences that exist between the electricity and other nationalised industries on the one hand and private industry on the other. We believe that in the nature of things, the use of capital"—
I repeat—
the use of capital cannot be as strictly or as closely guided by economic considerations as is the case in a private industry.
Paragraph 348 continues:
With this in mind, we have given serious consideration to the question whether the Area Boards and the Generation Board should not be required to raise their own capital by going directly to the market, without the support of the Treasury guarantee, and competing there on the basis of the financial position and prospects of each of those bodies respectively.
Now come the vital words which I commend to my hon. Friend:
We feel that short of this"—
that is, resort to the market—
it is very difficult to achieve full efficiency.
My right hon. Friend this afternoon was claiming that the gas industry had achieved full efficiency, but I do not believe that it has. I do not think that

it employs its capital resources to the optimum effect; in fact, I believe that many of the capital resources are wasted because it is largely a monopoly and because the same considerations of profit earning do not apply to it as apply in private industry—through no fault of its own. But then the Herbert Committee continues with very apposite words in connection with the gas industry. It says:
The point we are raising therefore, although it arises from our examination of the organisation and efficiency of the electricity supply industry, is in fact a general point applying to all nationalised industries which rely on Treasury guarantee and of which two are competitive with the electricity industry.
I pause there. One of the two is, of course, gas. It continues:
We feel therefore that we cannot recommend a course which might have the effect of increasing the interest component in the cost of electricity unless the same policy were applied to nationalised industries supplying competitive products. A general recommendation of this sort is we feel outside our terms of reference. We can only draw the attention of the Minister to the matter and say that the recommendations we make for an improved control of expenditure are in our opinion not likely to be wholly effective unless both the product of the industry and its raising of capital are subjected to the competition of the market.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, having read this voluminous Report with the same avidity as I have, will recall that in the summary of recommendations and conclusions there are contained these telling words. I commend them to my hon. Friend today. Recommendation No. 68 on page 146 reads:
The efficient use of capital would be encouraged if the Boards had to compete for capital funds on the market without the support of the Treasury guarantee, but this course could only be followed if it were also applied to other nationalised industries.
We all devoted a lot of care, time and attention to creating this distinguished Committee led by Sir Edwin Herbert. Sir Edwin deliberated for nearly two years before producing his remarkably careful and detailed Report. This was the principal recommendation which he made. Both the Treasury and the Ministry of Power have studiously ignored Sir Edwin's recommendation in this regard and now come to the House today on behalf of the gas industry for an extra £50 million of capital from budgetary funds with a prospect of the Minister, subject to Regulation, raising


yet another £25 million, a total of £75 million, in order to increase the borrowing powers of the boards from £450 million to £525 million.
The Minister should tell the House when he proposes to implement the Herbert recommendations and cause these nationalised boards to compete on the open market for their capital instead of providing it by stroke of pen from the Consolidated Fund or otherwise under Ministerial authority. Only by resort to the open market will full efficiency be achieved. These are not my words. They are the words of Sir Edwin Herbert, including the T.U.C. representative sitting on his Committee.
Now I pass to another aspect of committee matters respecting the gas industry? It was Lord Morrison of Lambeth, lately the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South, who stood at the Dispatch Box in 1950 saying that public accountability in nationalised industries should most largely rest upon a seven-yearly examination of their affairs by high level Ministerially-appointed committees. We had Herbert for the electricity supply industry and Fleck for the coal industry. We have not yet had one for the gas industry.
The gas industry has been nationalised for twelve years. I am not sure that it is in such good order as my right hon. Friend suggests. I concede that it is a little more efficient than certain other nationalised industries, but it is still not efficient enough. We were promised by a Socialist Minister that we should have an examination every seven years, but we have not had one. When are we going to have it? What will its terms of reference be?
I strongly recommend to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—I hope that he writes shorthand and that he will record these terms of reference —It is nothing to grin about. I rebuke my hon. Friend at once. This is a very serious matter. The terms of reference for this inquiry into the gas and carbonisation industry—[An HON. MEMBER: "Do not be rough with him."] I am not being rough with him; I am being kind with him, as yet. The terms of reference should be: "To inquire into the organisation and efficiency of the gas and carbonisation industry in Great Britain in the light of its working under

the Gas Act, 1948, and to make recommendations."
My first proposal is that the gas boards should be given a date on which they resort to the open money market for their future capital requirements. My second proposal is that a committee of inquiry should be established to inquire into the gas industry—it has been nationalised for twelve years—in the same way as the Fleck Committee inquired into the coal industry and the Herbert Committee into the electricity industry. Then I shall be able to examine the findings of independent arbitrators and investigators to see what level of efficiency has been achieved in the gas industry. I should not have to rely upon the paeans of praise showered upon this nationalised board by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power or by the official Socialist Opposition. I prefer independent inquiries into these matters.
Now let me turn for a moment to an important aspect of the gas industry's affairs. Gas and coke make the best use of the nation's coal. There is no doubt about that at all. We have all been united in our desire to secure very full implementation of the provisions of the Clean Air Act at the earliest moment. It is now nearly four years since that Act reached the Statute Book. Again my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware of the many recommendations contained in the Beaver Report and of the great difficulty that has been experienced in supplying adequate quantities of smokeless fuel in order to replace raw bituminous coal for industrial and domestic purposes, notably in what Beaver called the "black areas" of the country, that is, those areas which are most heavily polluted.
Beaver postulated in his Report that approximately 19 million tons of solid smokeless fuel, or the equivalent of it, would be required for these black areas if they were to be entirely cleaned up. We are creating smoke control zones quite fast, but there are very real difficulties in regard to the smokeless fuel I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will recognise this. It is the Minister of Housing and Local Government who creates the smoke control areas, only after consultation with the Minister of Power who says


to him, "Yes. I have sufficient smokeless fuel to support a smokeless control area in this or that local authority area."
What is troubling me about the matter is the character of the solid smokeless fuel provided in these smoke control areas. Certainly gas, electricity and oil are readily available and are all good refined and smokeless fuels. But today my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power—I am sure that I take hon. Members opposite with me—said that we in this country treasure the open fire. I do. I am sorry to interrupt my theme, but perhaps I could, in a moment, join in the conversation going on below the Bar. I am surprised at a Whip behaving like that. Whips should be seen and not heard, on all occasions.
To continue my speech, I treasure the open fire. I do not want smoky raw bituminous coal burned upon it. I want a solid smokeless fuel consumed, a premium fuel and not of the quality of much of the domestic gas coke available today from the gas boards. Poor stuff it is for an open domestic fire, and in any event there is a natural antipathy among housewives to relying upon gas coke as a solid smokeless fuel as a replacement for the happy and warm and cosy coal fire to which they have become accustomed, we all know the names— Coalite, Phurnacite, Rexco, even a product of the Southern Gas Board called Cleanglow. Another is Warmco. They are proprietary premium fuels, but they are all extremely expensive. Up and down the country, as these smoke control areas are created, there is going to be a huge, unfulfilled demand for solid smokeless fuels at a reasonable price, and I want to know what the gas boards are doing about it?
Are they doing anything? I doubt it. The Southern Gas Board has the proprietary fuel, Cleanglow, but there is little in the Midlands so far as I am aware. There are only tiny quantities, anyway. That is what the gas boards ought to be doing. They should not be turning out coke of indifferent quality and texture or coke breeze and trying to force that on domestic consumers as a solid smokeless fuel. They should be concentrating on the production of a good quality, high calorific value, solid, smokeless fuel which will commend itself to housewives in these smoke control areas.
I want to know what progress has been made in this important regard. I hope my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will not respond with paeans of praise for the boards but will, for a change, say something a little critical about them. Perhaps it would be a very good thing if a Conservative Minister stuck a pin in the backsides of a few of these people on the nationalised boards. The housewife does not want these solid smokeless fuels from the gas boards dumped on her doorstep in a heap, to be heaved in a bucket into a coal shed and then in another bucket into her parlour and put on the fire.
Why is Britain so far behind in the prepackaging of fuels? We are told by Mr. Isaac Wolfson and others that there will be a revolution in shopping in the 1960's. The supermarket is to be the order of the day. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) vigorously nods his agreement. I hope he will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Mr. Skeet: Do not be too long.

Mr. Nabarro: I shall be only another five minutes. The housewife wants solid smokeless fuel, clean and prepackaged. Britain is lagging behind in this matter. The supermarkets should be places where the housewife, or her husband shopping with the motor car, can go not only to buy tinned foods, vegetables, fruit and household necessities over a wide range, but to buy 7 1b. avoirdupois or 14 1b. avoirdupois packages of solid smokeless fuel done up neatly in polythene bags. It would be prepackaged at the gas works mechanically in these bags and transported to the supermarkets where it would be sold, by retail. This is a tendency happening all over the world. Are the gas boards not interested in selling prepackaged solid smokeless fuel? That should be one of their primary purposes?

Mr. F. Blackburn: I wonder how long a 7 1b. bag would last?

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. The purpose of a 7 1b. bag avoirdupois is that the housewife takes it home—or several of them— and that is one good "making up" of the fire. She does not have to put it in a bucket but carries it to the fireplace, unties the neck of the bag, and tips it


upside down without any of the dirt normally associated with the handling of coal or coke in her own home. That is the purpose. It has advanced a good way. It should be prepackaged at the gas works and distributed through the supermarkets in the same way as perishables are. Furthermore, it is coming in the next few years. If the gas boards are to be efficient they should be apprised of this important development. If they are, I have not seen any manifestations of it. I have not seen gas board products in nice little clean polythene bags.

Mr. Alan Fitch: What about Cleanglow?

Mr. Nabarro: Cleanglow? But it is no good in a heap on your front doorstep. What I want is nice clean polythene bags of it.

Mr. Wilfred Proudfoot: Does my hon. Friend realise the cost of a polythene bag? I have something to do with these supermarkets. In this prepackaging the tendency is for smaller bags, even from 7 1b. bags of flour to 3½ 1b. bags. I do not think that one could even sell 7 1b. of potatoes in a bag, let alone 7 1b. of coal.

Mr. Nabarro: I commend to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Proudfoot) the most interesting correspondence on this topic, which has been appearing for several weeks in the Financial Times, if he doubts the wisdom of what I am saying concerning the prepackaging of fuel. The research department of Monsanto Chemicals is well advanced in its inquiries into this technique and the fact is that it is widely practised in the United States and Canada already. If my hon. Friend wishes to argue with me about the cost of polythene, let me tell him that I insulate the whole of my greenhouses at home, producing delectable fresh vegetables, flowers and fruit for the insignificant sum of £2 4s. per annum.

Mr. Proudfoot: I worked in supermarkets in the United States and I found that the only fuel sold there was charcoal for chicken barbecues on the lawn. I have just installed gas central heating. I do not have to ring up the gas board, because it comes through a pipe. I do not have to drag the stuff home for myself.

Mr. E. Shinwell: I am trying to help the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). This is an interesting topic. I agree with much of what he has said, except for his animadversions on nationalisation, but that is part of party warfare. But I can remember Glasgow and the East End of London, and all the poverty-stricken areas of the country for many long years. People who were too poor to buy 1 cwt. of coal went to the corner of the street—to the coal ree, as we call it in Scotland—where coal was sold in bags, sometimes of 10 1b. That was the only way they could buy it because of their poverty. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is quite right. If it could be prepacked in polythene bags and sold in supermarkets and elsewhere, that would be very desirable indeed.

Mr. Nabarro: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, with his immense knowledge of the fuel and power industries, for fortifying me and protecting me from my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland.
I do not want to continue for too long, but this is an intriguing topic. We are voting vast sums of money for an industry which is required to supply a major part of the nation's solid smokeless fuel, as written into its constitution—coke. I want that solid smokeless fuel in a much more palatable and acceptable form for the housewife.
I quote to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland these words extracted from a report sent to me by Monsanto Chemicals, which is, after all, one of our leading developers of polythene as a method of packaging. The report states:
The prepackaging of solid fuel at source is not yet done commercially … "—
that is, at source, at the gas works, where I want it done—
but the prepackaging of coal in paper bags commenced in January in Coventry, at the rate of 500 tons per week and another merchant in London is packing ' large quantities'. Others are experimenting, for example, Charrington, Ltd., who use a specially equipped lorry for weighing and filling at the point of sale.
Later, the report states:
Technically, the problem is to provide dry fuel "—
I pause there in my quotation, because there is so much grousing about the weight of water in coke and coal. If it


is packaged at source, that is obviated. I continue the quotation:
and package it in thin polyethylene bags, using the thinnest gauge of film which will provide both adequate strength and resistance to the sharp points on coal granules which might penetrate and cause external soiling. It is visualised that packages weighing 5 or 6 1b. would be suitable "—
here is the answer to the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn)—
for placing on a fire without opening the bag. Prepackaging machines for similar weights are already in wide use for such commodities as potatoes",
to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland referred.
Prepackaging is the order of the day in North America. It will be the order of the day in Britain within a year or two. A complete revolution in shopping is coming in this country in the 1960s. I do not want to see a heap of dirty coal or coke piled up in a merchant's yard and dumped on the doorstep, as it has been in past years, by a coal or coke merchant. It should be prepackaged at source in units which are readily available to the housewife through the supermarket organisation, clean, labour-saving and easily transported. The gas boards should be applying themselves to this problem, but they are not.
I repeat to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, for the benefit of his reply, that I hope he will not once again launch into a eulogy about nationalised boards. They are not perfect. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Minister returning. He opened our proceedings today with the customary paeans of praise for the gas industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice that all the cheers come from the Socialists and none from this side. There is no enthusiasm here for nationalisation, but, then, we do not have Clause 4 on our plate.
I hope that when he replies, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will give us the benefit of his views upon how the gas boards can meet the largely unfulfilled demand for premium and solid smokeless fuels and with a better and more attractive fuel than gas coke of the indifferent qualities for domestic use which have been offered, notwithstanding the British Standards specifications embraced in the last few years.
Subject only to those few qualifications and minor criticisms, I have pleasure in supporting my right hon. Friend's proposals today and I hope that the Bill will have a rapid passage to the Statute Book.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Alan Fitch: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is always interesting to listen to and to look at. He is an accomplished actor. He seems to be able to dramatise all the emotions through which he is supposed to be passing. I hope that for the remainder of this debate, we shall return from the supermarket and from all the various types of packages back to the gas industry which we are supposed to be discussing.
I am aware of the proposal that fifteen minutes should be the maximum time for a back bencher to speak, and I agree with that. It is also proposed that thirty minutes should be the maximum for a Front Bencher, but who am I to tell the Front Bench, on either side, how long they should speak? I hope, however, to confine my remarks to ten minutes or so.
In this House we have from time to time discussed the coal industry, which is the head of the fuel family. It is an industry which is subject to much controversy. We have not, however, given very much time to the younger member of the fuel family, the gas industry. It is to that industry that I should like to direct my few remarks.
Gas first appeared as a commercial industry in 1810. It is interesting to note that in the early days of the industry there was ruinous competition between the rival enterprises for the sale of gas. So fierce was this competition that different companies ran their mains down the same street to induce the householder to buy gas. It became so ruinous that the gas companies had to amalgamate in their own self-defence. Out of their amalgamation came the zoning system, which an Act of Parliament of 1860 ratified for the area of London. Those of us from the coal industry who are interested in the distribution of coal could well look at the zoning scheme applied by the old gas companies and now by the gas boards.
On reading the revised Report of the National Coal Board, I noticed with very much regret that the gas industry is


taking less and less coal. In 1956, it used 27 million tons and in 1957, 26 million tons. In 1958 the figure fell to 24 million tons and it is estimated that in 1965 the gas industry will be using only 21 million tons of coal. This is a serious state of affairs and it suggests that there should be closer co-operation between the gas and coal industries.
There is no doubt that the gas industry is facing a crisis. It faces severe competition from electricity and oil. Between 1950 and 1958, there was a steeper rise in the price of gas than in the corresponding prices of electricity and oil. I do not quite share the views of the Minister, in which he suggested that the gas industry would always be a two-fuel industry. I believe that the process of carbonisation is coming to an end. If the gas industry is to compete successfully in the future it must look, as it is doing, to new methods of development and new techniques. It has been suggested to me by people with considerable knowledge of the gas industry that in another ten years' time there will be little market for coke. Carbonisation of one ton of coal yields about 80 therms of gas, and half a ton of coke. The problem facing the Gas Council is that it has stocks of coke piling up which it cannot sell but which obviously must be charged against the industry. That is bound to send up the price of gas, and, if new methods are not devised, will ultimately price the industry out of the market.
It costs almost as much to transport coke as it does to transport the original raw product, coal. It has also been suggested that the cost of distribution in the gas industry adds almost 100 per cent. to the cost of production.
Another reason why the gas industry is facing a crisis is because of the general economic recession which took place about two years ago when the supply of coke to the steel industry fell considerably. That market has not yet been fully replaced.
What of the future? The future of the gas industry lies in new technical developments such as the experiment at Partington near Manchester where a new gasification station is in the initial stages of construction and where they hope ultimately to be able to gasify coal. I am pleased that the Gas Council has decided in this case to use coal as the

raw material. I understand that carbonisation as a process can, at its maximum, be efficient only to the tune of 80 per cent. but the new gasification processes, such as the one at Parting-ton, will be efficient to the tune of 95 per cent.
I can see the gas industry branching out into another sphere. Up to now it has been mainly what is termed a selective fuel industry supplying light and heat to householders and also supplying certain industrial gas, but it has never yet captured the industrial market in the way that electricity has.
I believe that in the future the chemical industry will be greatly helped by raw material in the form of gases which can be supplied by these new gasification processes. All this will help to give the gas industry a new lease of life. The industry is looking for new techniques beyond the process of carbonisation, not from choice but because it is necessary in its own interests to do so if it is to retain its place in the fuel market.
The North Western Gas Board covers the area of which my constituency is a part. From time to time I have had close contact with the gas industry. I do not profess to be an expert technically. I am a layman, but even a layman who has close connections and who interests himself in certain projects can come to some conclusion about whether an industry is efficient or not. I can only speak for the north-western area. The industry there is very efficient. It is therefore regrettable that last year the board had to report a loss. The Report says:
The Board regret that for the first time for seven consecutive years they have to report a deficiency on the year's trading amounting to £589,780 which is equivalent to approximately 0·40d. per therm on all gas sold and used.
In other words, it had made a profit for the six preceding years.
Here, again, it has the same problem which is general to the country as a whole. The difficulty is the stocking of coke and the inability to sell it, which is adding to the mounting costs of the Gas Board. Nevertheless, in case any hon. Member should feel that in any way the board is inefficient I should like to quote one or two interesting facts about its operations in the north-western area.
In the last nine years there has been a 71½ per cent. increase in efficiency in meter reading and collecting. The sale of gas per employee is 9 per cent. above the national average. Productivity has increased by 25 per cent. per man. All this has taken place since the industry was nationalised. That is a good record.
I appeal to the Minister of Power to do everything he can to bring about closer co-operation between the National Coal Board and the gas industry. We are very pleased with his remarks, but I am sure that he could go even further. I believe that there is a great future for the nationalised gas industry. Until seventy years ago the gas industry was a monopoly. Electricity then entered the competitive market. The pessimists of those days said that the gas industry was finished. It did not finish; it survived, and I believe that if it faces the challenge of today, the challenge of new techniques, it will not go out but will go on to become an even more powerful fuel in this competitive world. If that challenge is met there is a great future for the gas industry.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) in all that he said, but I will follow his example and be brief because I have been advised that the debate will finish by seven o'clock, and I know that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak.
I should like to take up the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) in the context of his argument, because he said that everything was fair in the nationalised industries, particularly between coal and gas. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to quote from the Financal Times what was said by Sir Harold Smith, the former chairman of the Gas Council. I thought that it was only right that I should quote from The Times of 28th September, 1959, to see why the Gas Council has been in difficulties.
The report in The Times says:
His optimism"—
on the future of the industry—
was clearly based on the view that while the National Coal Board had hitherto been exacting a monopoly price for gas coal, the gas industry had now succeeded in breaking the monopoly by developing other sources of gas. Since the nationalisation of the gas in-

dustry, the price of coal had been put up to gas users out of all proportion to the price to domestic consumers and other industries for the same types of coal, Sir Harold said. The result was that during the past few years the gas industry had had a very hard struggle. Not only had the price been put up against them, but there had been many occasions in the past ten years when they could not get as much coal as they wanted.
That quotation from Sir Harold Smith, who has had fifty years' experience in the industry, puts in brief phraseology the cause of the trouble in the industry today.
I was surprised that the hon. Member for Newton should say that one possible solution for the troubles of the industry was an impost on fuel oil. Because various oil fractions could be used in gasification there was no indication that the tax would fall where it was intended. I think that the hon. Gentleman should be consistent in his argument. When this matter was debated in the Bundestag, in Western Germany, the Socialist counterparts of hon. Members opposite voted against the imposition of a tax there. I dare say that they would give the same advice here. One compelling argument is to put the whole matter in the correct perspective—

Mr. Lee: I would remind the hon. Member that many Conservative members of the Bundestag advocated taxing oil.

Mr. Skeet: The interest of the people of Germany is to have the cheapest possible competitive fuel. They appreciate that the oil industry gives it to them. That is why they are against a tax. They feel that if there is to be an impost on fuel oil it would not only harass industry, but also the small trader who uses oil on his own premises.
To get this into the correct perspective—

Mr. Albert Roberts: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the industry has been putting a high price on high-quality coal?

Mr. Skeet: That is a matter which should be referred to the Coal Board.
In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Newton, I do not think that the relationship between the various nationalised industries is altogether happy.
To put the matter in the correct perspective, of the total gas produced in the United Kingdom up to a fairly recent date, 81 per cent. was derived from coal and coke ovens; 14 per cent. from water gas with a certain amount of oil enrichment; and only 4 per cent. of the total came from oil. Is the suggestion, therefore, that it is essential to have a fuel oil tax simply to deal with that 4 per cent?
It is sterile to look at the past. One should look to the future. I wish to concentrate on the question of methane gas imported into the United Kingdom. We have imported 9,400 tons by the "Methane Pioneer". I hope that we shall build in the United Kingdom or overseas a vessel capable of bringing 20,000 tons of liquified methane gas. This would be equal to a coal equivalent of 2 million tons per annum and provide a way ultimately by which the costs of the industry could be reduced.
I commend to my right hon. Friend a paper delivered by Dr. John McMullen to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers on 27th January of this year, in which this matter is gone into and the economics of it assessed. Everyone appreciates that in the United States, where there is an indigenous supply of natural gas, natural gas accounts for 27 per cent. of the total energy used there; and electricity a little less. That answer may not apply in the United Kingdom, where we have no indigenous supplies, but on the Continent of Europe it may have some application. Of the total energy supplied in France by 1975, 43 per cent. is likely to come from coal and at least 25 per cent. from natural gas. My forecast, for what it is worth, is that it may be possible in time for natural gas to provide 20 per cent. of the total energy used.
Many arguments have been adduced in the House in favour of a gas which is non-toxic. Methane is non-toxic and because it is lighter than air it has the advantage of rising extremely rapidly. The value of that is that it will reduce the incidence of explosion.
In Venezuela, 56 per cent. of the natural gas comes from oil wells and is flared. In Saudi Arabia, the figure is as high as 34 per cent., this gas is not used. Why could it not be brought to the United Kingdom if an economic method could be found to do this? I suggest

that my right hon. Friend looks at this matter carefully. Ultimately, he may find that it will provide an answer to his problems.
Dealing with the Lurgi process, I think that we have to bear in mind that there are certain problems which must be appreciated. It is a substantial plant and, of course, as has been mentioned, it is a base-load plant. It is necessary to spend a great deal of money on the disposal of effluent from the processing and to have a certain degree of oil enrichment for the final product. Taking all in all, I think it right that the gas industry should have this money, but what I am primarily concerned about is that the order of priorities in research and development should be right.
I have here a copy of "Towards a New Energy Pattern in Europe". It is the O.E.E.C. Robinson Report. I do not intend to quote from it, but merely mention it. The Report indicates that by 1975 there may be a pipeline circulating throughout Europe which will bring the resources of the Sahara fields by a pipeline probably coming through Spain. In a report in this morning's newspaper, I noticed the possibility of a gas pipeline coming through Italy right up to the Ruhr.
It may tease the imagination to know that if, eventually, we have a Channel tunnel, we might consider bringing power through it to this country from the Continent. Let us not be too parochial in our thinking. Let us consider ourselves as part of Europe and of the European development. If, in the next ten or fifteen years, there are advantages to be derived from methane gas let us cash in on its advantages. If we miss them and tie ourselves too closely to the monopoly of coal, we shall not have hearkened to the words of a former chairman of the Gas Council, that it is not in our ultimate interests to do so. The industry should have flexibility to make use of the raw materials which are available.
I shall not be surprised if, at a later date, my right hon. Friend asks for more money to carry out the developments he has in mind. If that is so, we shall have to support what he is doing. I think that his policy is to make this industry even more competitive and we must give him the opportunity so that the industry may stand on its own feet.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: While supporting the Bill under discussion, I wish briefly to reply to one or two things which were said by the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). The hon. Gentleman said that the coal industry and the electricity industry had been subject to an inquiry, but not the gas industry. He seemed to be disturbed because an inquiry had not been held into the operation and working of the gas industry. He said he was tired of Select Committees and commissions making reports and nothing being done about the recommendations which were made.
The hon. Gentleman then claimed that he was a student of history, butif his studies of history are correct, I think he will agree that no industry in this country has been subject to more inquiries and commissions than the coal industry was when it was under the control of private enterprise. I challenge him to deny that statement. He then went on to say that it was about time that there was an inquiry into the operations of the gas industry. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways—criticising commissions and Select Committees, on the one hand, and then asking for a Select Committee or an inquiry into the gas industry on the other.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that what the housewives wanted was a good smokeless fuel. That is what we all want. That is why we put on the Statute Book several years ago the Clean Air Act—in order that people living in industrial areas should at least have the opportunity afforded to them to breathe cleaner and purer air. When we embark upon a course of that character it takes a long time. Hitherto, as I have often said and now repeat, we have had too much raw coal of good quality at too cheap a rate. We have wasted it, because there was a superabundance of it and because it was of extraordinarily good quality.
Now, we are faced with this situation in the mining industry, and have to be content to make smokeless fuel out of an inferior raw material. It just cannot be done by return of post. Science has to be called in, experiments have to be undertaken and prices have to be brought within reach of the ordinary people. On this point, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and also with my hon.

Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). There is a very wide field for development in the utilisation of the surplus small coal which is now lying on the ground. It will have to be used, because we shall not be able to sell it as a raw material. It is depreciated in quality, and, therefore, the sooner the Gas Council and those responsible for the production of smokeless fuel can get to work to produce a smokeless fuel which will meet the needs of the ordinary householder the better it will be for everybody.
The hon. Member for Kidderminster also made reference to selling smokeless fuel in 7 lb. bags as if that were something original. Bless my life, we have been selling it in 7 lb. bags in industrial areas for donkeys years; I do not mean smokeless fuel, but the raw material. Why did we do it? Why were we compelled to sell it in small quantities? It was because the people in those days had not got the money with which to buy proper coal. That was the reason, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Gas Council or those responsible for the organisation ought to get to work as speedily as possible to give to the consuming public a smokeless fuel which, in terms of quality and price, will help to produce a comfortable kitchen fire. The sooner they do that the better it will be for the coal industry.
Never in the history of this country have we had as much small coal stocked, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that we have today over 30 to 50 million tons of coal stocked, depreciating every hour, every day, every week, and every year. It appears that no drive or thought is being applied to the task of increasing the amount of smokeless fuel. I know that many firms are trying to do this, but I should like to see the Gas Council itself doing something in this direction and not leaving it to private enterprise. Private enterprise is doing its best. I can quite see, in the very near future, that if these smokeless zones are to operate as the Clean Air Act intends that they should we shall have to meet the demands of the people for smokeless fuel. At the moment we cannot do it; it is an impossibility, because there is not sufficient smokeless fuel on the market to meet the need created by the establishment of smokeless zones.
Therefore, I very strongly support this Bill which will lead to an intensification of the production of smokeless fuel. I welcome what is being done, or is proposed to be done, at Partington, near Manchester. It is a great stride forward, and if the development which is proposed is carried out it will give a stimulus to the manufacture of smokeless fuels from raw coal.
There is one other point on which I wish to touch before I leave this question of smokeless fuels. I speak with great humility as one who, for seven and a half years, was chairman of a very large gas undertaking. It manufactured gas for three townships, and during the process of the manufacture of gas, which was the main fuel produced, we produced several other things as well. It was a natural sequence to the carbonisation of coal.
I have always maintained that there are four or five main kinds of byproducts to be extracted from coal, all of them of benefit to the consumer and all of them of benefit to people who do not even consume coal but who use electricity or other forms of power. There is coke, gas, tar and sulphate of ammonia or ammoniacal liquor, as the first process, produced as a natural sequence of carbonising raw coal. It is in that field in which, in my judgment, the Gas Council will have to work so as to produce more by-products from the raw coal for the people who need them.
Why should we in this age have to buy our artificial fertilisers from overseas? Why is there a market here for fertilisers from abroad when we can produce our own fertilisers from the by-products of coal? If I may draw upon my own personal experience, I remember going to Germany to see how the Germans manipulated and organised the manufacture of sulphate of ammonia in order that they could capture the market in this country for fertilisers. I soon discovered that the ammoniacal liquor, which has been running to waste in this country, was collected in one huge area in Germany and taken to one producing plant. As a result of that collection and manufacture by one unit of production, Germany was able to sell to us sulphate of ammonia, which is one of the most valuable fertilisers which can be produced, at a cheaper price than we could produce it at that time.
I plead with the Minister of Power to see that when the Gas Council secures the powers which will be conceded to it when this Bill reaches the Statute Book it does not take a lackadaisical view of the whole thing, but that it will put some ginger into it, get on with the job and apply a greater and more thorough degree of science in experimenting with raw coal, which is so valuable to us, to produce these by-products which are so essential in so many avenues of our everyday life. I hope that will be done because, if it is not, this Bill will fail in its purpose. It will fail in its purpose if the industry depends on gas works utilising small coal. It will succeed only when the industry extracts these by-products from the raw coal which is so vital in maintaining the mining industry. If the industry fails to extract these byproducts from the raw coal it will mean that the Bill will fail in its application.
I plead with the Minister and all concerned that there should be no lackadaisical attitude, no drawing back, but a going forward with scientific inquiries into all these things which are part and parcel of the mining industry and which will help it considerably. I am delighted to know that the chairman of the National Coal Board and the chairman of the Gas Council are to co-operate and consult together.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is time they did so.

Mr. Brown: Yes, co-operation ought to have taken place years ago, but it is no good crying over spilt milk. We are trying to do our best for the industry. When we help a kindred industry which burns, carbonises or uses coal in other ways we are helping the British mining industry and British miners. Having regard to the past, the immediate present and the future, we have to do our best to see that coal is utilised in the most economical way to help the mining industry and the people of the country, who are worthy of the best that we can give them.

6.33 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: As the opening words of my speech I say to the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) that I, for one, would not like to see the economy of this country tied to foreign fuel. We must appreciate that the economy of this country cannot


survive on sympathy. I realise that industry needs an efficient fuel and a cheap fuel to compete in world markets. When I say "a cheap fuel", I do not, of course, mean cheap mine workers or cheap workers of any kind.
A few years ago the gas industry was considered to be an industry which was on the way out, but I have implicit faith in our technicians, not only in the gas industry but in the other power industries, to keep this country on top. In the last few years the gas industry has made enormous strides. As has been said this afternoon, it must be realised that there must be full co-operation between the mining industry, the electricity industry and the gas industry. Many homes at present could consume far more fuel than they do. Three-quarters of our homes are not heated. The answer to that is cheap fuel.
I am not against the importation of liquid gas if it is to enrich our gas, but the salvation of the gas industry of this country is to provide a cheap gas and to obtain the gas from cheap fuel, not an inferior fuel. At the moment, it is having to pay high prices for some of the coal it uses, but the coal industry has to survive. Hon. Members will realise that our great natural resource is coal. If we can make the best use of our brains and if our technicians lay emphasis on the use of coal, I am convinced that the gas industry can be a good competitor with the electricity industry.
Of course, the coal industry wants to assist the gas industry. It is essential to to do all that we can do to help that co-operation. We are not against some of the things which have been suggested by hon. Members opposite. We want to see the industry of this country in the vanguard of progress. We can assist that by taking advantage of the right kind of research. Many feel that we could get over this obstacle only by bringing in oil and liquid gas. Heaven forbid that we should do that at the expense of our home coal industry. Hon. Members on this side of the House have put up a gigantic fight. If the effort is put into the work we can get the fuel at the right prices.
A matter which has not been mentioned so far in this debate is the sale of gas. The chairman of the North East Gas Board knows very well that in my

area some districts are without adequate showrooms. That is lamentable, for if we want to sell gas we must bring its uses before the eye of the public. In one part of my constituency people have to go into a pokey office to pay their bills and very few gas appliances are on show. When representations are made about the inadequacy of showrooms, the only answer is that the industry is making no profit but is "in the red" and cannot afford to provide satisfactory showrooms. That is not the spirit which is required. There must be a spirit and a will to win.
If the gas industry will put its goods into the shop window properly, have a positive outlook and take advantage of some of the things which have been said this afternoon, such as suggestions about transportation of coal and of gas, I am convinced that the effort which this Bill is designed to assist will be successful. I know that the Bill will receive the consent of the House. I trust that the gas industry will take heart from what has been said this afternoon and will realise that the majority in the House is behind the effort to make sure that we have a successful gas industry.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: A few weeks ago the House spent some time debating the mining industry as the chief supplier of our energy needs in this country. Today, we have turned our attention, in this very interesting debate, to the gas industry, another supplier of our heat and our energy requirements.
I will take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) on a very interesting and able maiden speech. There can be no doubt that he spoke with a great deal of knowledge of the subject. I can assure him that the House will always listen to an hon. Member who knows a good deal about the subject on which he is speaking. It was quite obvious from his excellent speech that he knew his subject and I know that we shall have the opportunity of hearing his advice and views upon it again in the near future.
It has been said that civilisation is based upon power. There can be no doubt that our standard of living and the extent of our industrial expansion depends upon our power industries. It


depends upon their efficiency and, equally, upon the policies of the Government of the day and the encouragement which we are prepared to give to the officials and workmen alike who are employed in the power industries.
Looking at the record of the gas industry during the nearly eleven years since vesting day, there can be no doubt that each of the 12 area boards has shown energy, efficiency and plenty of drive. By integration schemes, they have improved the supply of gas in each of their areas. They have given added supplies to the industries of the country and to domestic consumers in quite a variety of ways.
Representing a Welsh constituency as I do, I have some knowledge of the valuable contribution which the Welsh Gas Board has made to the industries of Wales. Like the boards in other areas, it has constructed hundreds of miles of pipeline to convey gas from the steel works in South Wales—Cardiff and Margam—and from Shotton in the North, from the coke ovens of the National Coal Board in South and North-West Wales, from Bedwas in Monmouthshire; all these industries have been used effectively by the Gas Board in conveying gas throughout the Principality.
Indeed, when we look at the position in South Wales and the great developments which have taken place there, I say at once that in a large measure they have been due to the fact that ample supplies of good quality gas have been available as a result of the drive of the Welsh Gas Board. After all, if we look at British Nylon Spinners, of Pontypool, at Hoover Ltd., of Merthyr, and at Pilkington Bros., in the North, we see that these great industries, which have had a marked effect upon Wales, are fed by gas. We now know that the Pressed Steel Company, which is beginning operations in South-West Wales, is to be fed by gas. The fact that the Welsh Gas Board has done all this since nationalisation is an inducement to industries to move to Wales.
We also know that gas is particularly suitable for certain forms of manufacture. I have mentioned the nylon industry. Under gas heating, temperatures can be regulated and controlled in such a way that gas becomes a valuable asset

to many of these industries and undertakings.
I have mentioned what has been achieved in Wales, but it is only typical of what has been done by many area boards. The fact that increasing quantities of gas are available has given an impetus to firms which, in co-operation with the gas industry, now manufacture a wide variety of appliances, including cookers, refrigerators, water and space heaters, laundry equipment and meters, to mention only a few. By doing this they have helped to increase the demand for gas. Because of the appliances which are being manufactured for the use of gas, there has been a new drive in the industry.
The achievements of the area boards are all the more creditable when it is realised that on vesting day 1,037 separate undertakings were taken over. Some were efficient, some were not. Plant in many areas had become obsolete, requiring considerable capital expenditure to put the undertakings on anything like a modern basis to meet the changing pattern of industry and the increasing demand. The war prevented developments which some of these undertakings might have had in mind. To make the position worse, much damage was done by enemy action during the war. Plant was destroyed, and this seriously impaired the activities of the gas industry during the war.
It was in that setting that the gas industry came under public ownership. It required a great deal of public expenditure to put the industry on anything like an efficient basis. We know that the boards set about the task. Throughout the country, during the past nine or ten years the area boards have laid over 20,000 miles of mains. In this process 500 gas works out of the 1,037 undertakings in the country were ultimately closed. Others were modernised and linked by mains stretching thousands of miles.
This reorganisation of the industry in each gas board area has been accomplished with hardly a ripple on the water. I cannot recall any debate in the House in which there were complaints of the reorganisation of this industry. That has been due to the co-operation which has existed between the workmen and the management in the gas industry and to


the co-operation of the trade unions in doing this jab. We have reached the stage in the industry at which we can look forward to a national grid system.
It has been pointed out in the debate that this industry has not relied entirely on the traditional methods of producing gas in retorts or coke ovens. That is perfectly true. Methane is now being produced and taken from collieries in this country. I may have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman, but he did not seem to me over-optimistic about this new method of producing gas in this country, but in Wales—and, here again, I must be pardoned for referring to Wales—the board has constructed 16½ miles of pipeline in the Avon Valley, taking methane from three collieries in the districts to the board's works at Aberavon. I am informed that there are prospects in the near future of draining 30 collieries in South Wales for the purpose of obtaining methane for the supply of gas in the South Wales area. That is being obtained at the colliery at Point of Air in the North, which is supplying gas in North Wales.
What is being done in Wales is also being done to a greater or lesser degree in Scotland. Methane is being obtained from certain collieries in the Midlands. The South Western Board has installed at Gloucester a gasification plant to utilise coal not suitable for normal carbonisation. Refined gas is being increasingly used in the southern counties under the area boards, and, as a result of these experiments and of research, new methods are being employed in each of these areas.
That is evidence of drive, initiative and enterprise. Each of the Boards in its own way—in different ways, perhaps —is improving the gas supply, particularly to industries. The most outstanding achievement of the gas industry has been the progress made in making gas from lower grade coal, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. A new gas plant using this process has been established at Westfield, Fife, and will soon be in operation. It has now gone beyond the experimental stage. It now goes into production. It is the first of its kind to adopt what is called the Lurgi process developed in Germany.
I mention that in particular, because it is an achievement. It is something

done, something accomplished. It is a fact. The plant is going into production. A second plant is being planned by the West Midlands Gas Board at Coleshill, Warwickshire. I understand that by the end of this year this method will result in the production of gas more cheaply than can be achieved by the older methods and, at the same time, will consume large quantities of the poorer quality coals. The process leaves no coke, but results in some valuable by-products.
Two of these plants are being constructed at considerable cost. It is a well-tried and successful process of gas production. The Lurgi method is the best hope for the gas industry and certainly for the coal mining industry. That is why it is so difficult to understand why money should be spent on the importation from abroad of liquid methane. Statements have been made by gas board officials about what is being done by new methods. Methane is being taken from our pits on an ever-increasing scale. In view of that, why have we to spend considerable sums of money on liquid methane from abroad? If money is to be spent, we should construct more of these plants by which we can use our own methane and produce the necessary gas without leaving a residue of coke.
These two methods should be uppermost in the mind of the gas industry and of the Government. This is where we need better co-ordination between the fuel industries, which was mentioned in previous debates. I was very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman say— I am tempted to say "at last"—that there is now definite evidence that there will be some co-ordination between the National Coal Board and the gas industry. After all, credit must be given to the gas industry for taking methane from our pits, particularly in South Wales. The coal industry has done its job. It has co-operated with the gas boards. The coal industry has said, "Take this methane from the pits if it will assist the gas industry and help consumption". The industry has done that in a spirit of co-operation. Therefore, I am glad to learn that at last the gas industry is to make some response and see what can be done by methods of co-ordination between these two very important fuel, heat and energy industries.
The grave risk is that if there is to be importation of liquid methane on top of the ever-increasing consumption of oil we shall become more and more dependent upon imports. This can be dangerous, both on economic and on strategic grounds. Our advance depends upon the best use we can make of our own resources. If this was an agricultural debate, and more emphasis was being placed on bringing into this country agricultural products, there would be a hue and cry from the agricultural interests. There would be considerable opposition to the reduction of tariffs as regards other industries.
When such advances have been made as the production of liquid methane and the new Lurgi process, as a result of the activities of the gas boards, why should we continue to spend money on importing liquid methane? If money is to be spent, we should spend it on the Lurgi process. That is the means by which we can improve the position from our own pits.
In its excellent little booklet "Gas Looks Ahead" the Gas Council records its achievements under nationalisation. Reference is made to increased production, a lower labour force and a reduction by over one half in the number of gas works in operation. It is pointed out that the demand for gas has risen by 12 per cent. since vesting date and a further increase of 9 per cent. is expected in the period up to 1966. The industry is doing this in competition with other kinds of fuel and energy and is satisfying the growing demand for fuel in a refined, clean and convenient way.
The record of the gas industry under nationalisation is a great tribute to public ownership. This is another of the publicly-owned industries which is doing so much for private industry and private enterprise. I am amazed when hon. Gentlemen opposite are so very critical of the publicly-owned industries, because they are all doing a great job of work for private enterprise. When the demand for coal was high, a fixed price was imposed and coal was sold by the National Coal Board below economic price to the country's industries. Many industries had the benefit of cheap coal, the gas industry makes a valuable contribution to private ownership. What can be said of gas can be said of elec-

tricity, and I hope that it will be said of nuclear energy in the years to come. I look upon the gas industry as the bouncing baby of the country's fuel industries. It is the smallest, but it is doing exceedingly well.
As the gas industry has such an excellent record, we on this side have no hesitation in supporting the borrowing powers contemplated in the Bill. Two-thirds of the proposed future capital expenditure will be financed internally, as against only one-third under the past programme. Each year since 1949, until last year, there was a surplus. As with the Coal Board, the gas industry does not seek a subsidy. It does not ask for grants or for taxation relief. It asks for a loan, which is all that the other nationalised industries have been asking for. Each one of them asks for borrowing powers. Private industry is already receiving millions of pounds from the national Exchequer. The aircraft industry, the cotton industry and the agricultural industry have knocked at the door, and now the shipbuilding industry is knocking.
More industries will knock at the door for public money. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) need not be alarmed about the position. He will have to sit in the House in the months to come and hear of other proposals to spend more money upon private enterprise. That will be the future policy of the present Government—more and more for private enterprise. All that the nationalised industries are getting out of it are borrowing powers. That is all that the Gas Council asks for, namely, borrowing powers to enable it to carry on with its efficient work to help industry and to work hand in hand with industry to build up the country's economy.
In these circumstances, we should have no hesitation in agreeing to the Measure, critical as we are of some aspects of the administration of gas boards. I hope that the industry will place greater emphasis upon our own internal resources, upon methane from our own pits and upon a further adoption of the Lurgi process rather than importing liquid methane from abroad.
That is the keynote which I must try to sound in closing. I hope that the Bill will go through without any opposition, because it will be another landmark of


the progress that industry is making as a result of the activities of public ownership.

7.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): I begin by joining in the praises to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), who made a most attractive, eloquent and well-informed maiden speech. I am sure that the East Midlands Gas Board will read with great interest his remarks on the threat to gas in that area, and I hope that benefits to that Board will accrue therefrom. My hon. Friend has started so well that we would all like him to take part in future power debates.
Every speech has been helpful, and I am sure that the Gas Council and the area boards will be heartened by this debate. Nevertheless, I sensed a tendency to forget what my right hon. Friend said at the beginning. As the debate proceeded, there seemed to be a growing feeling that the industry had only to get the money in order, inevitably, to go on to greater prosperity. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said that my right hon. Friend claimed complete efficiency for this industry, but, of course, he did nothing of the sort. What he said was that efficiency had risen, and that the money sought is needed to aid the industry in a fight, a real fight, to face a challenging future—

Mr. Nabarro: What my right hon. Friend was referring to, and I readily concede it, is the improvement in the thermal efficiency of the industry from approximately 72 per cent. to 77 per cent. That was what my right hon. Friend said. What I was referring to was the administrative efficiency or otherwise of the industry, which is an entirely different matter.

Mr. George: I emphasise what I set out to say. The feeling should not prevail that, inevitably, this industry is on the way to greater prosperity. It is facing a tremendous challenge. There may be diversity of views as to the methods being adopted to face the challenge, and those views have been expressed today, but the good will of all for the future has been evident.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Fitch) said that the methods were not being adopted by choice but of necessity; that the industry was facing a crisis. I do not put it as high as that. I prefer my right hon. Friend's words— the industry is facing a fight, and in facing that fight it must be free to choose whatever weapons are at its disposal. It has been recognised throughout the years that as carbonisation coals were scarce and expensive and the industry, in many cases, distant from the coal fields, it was likely that gas would lose the battle if it tied itself too closely to coal. That being so, the industry set out to get allies, which it found in refinery tail gases and the gasification of oil. I think that in future we shall see an expansion of the gasification of oil and the use of these gases.
The hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) said that the methods adopted were causing problems in the mining industry, and some problems are, indeed, being created. We know that as a result of the use of gasified oil or refinery tail gases in London and the South, some coal from Durham is being cut out, but let us assess this problem and get a true measure of the effect of changes in gas manufacture on the consumption of coal.
In 1949, the gas industry used 25·3 million tons of coal and half a million tons of oil were also used. In 1956, it used 28 million tons of coal—the highest it has ever used—and oil was still at half a million tons. In 1959, 22·5 million tons of coal—a drop of 55 million in the three years—were used, but oil had risen only to ·75 million tons.
The hon. Member for Newton gave credit to the industry for saving 2½ million tons of that 5½ million tons by increased efficiency. That is true. Part of the loss to the coal industry— probably a million tons—was occasioned by a fall in sales. Part was occasioned by increasing use of water gas—perhaps another million tons—in order to consume some extra coke. Therefore, the loss of coal sales due to the switch in the gas industry's practices is nothing like the 5½ million tons shown as a fall between 1956 and 1959. The fall is probably nearer a million or 1½ million tons.
Great anxiety has been expressed by hon. Members opposite about coal's future in this industry, but they must have been comforted to read in "Gas Looks Ahead" the Gas Council's view of the prospects for coal. It is there stated that, in 1959, 22·5 tons of coal were used, and it is estimated that in 1965–66 consumption will have fallen by only 1 million tons to 21·5 million tons. The swift fall in the past three years is being checked, and no great incursion into the use of coal in the industry—a further fall of only 1 million tons—is predicted before 1966.
The hon. Member for Newton thought that the Gas Council and the area boards were perhaps being over-pessimistic in their estimates of the future use of gas in industry by putting the increase at only 30 per cent., and paragraph 56 of the publication says:
The forecast … of the increase in the sales of gas during the seven years 1959–60 to 1965–66 may prove to be a conservative one.
They are obviously well aware of that danger, but as there have been so many recent experiences of over-estimating future prospects, it is, perhaps, wise to be conservative. It could be, therefore, that if there is the extra use of gas by industry for which the hon. Gentleman hopes, this 1 million tons drop might be cut.
As there have not been any voices raised against this Bill to enable extra money to be advanced to the industry, I will confine myself to trying to answer as best I can the various points that have been made. The hon. Member for Newton returned to that old complaint about alleged dumped oil and its effect on coal and, possibly, the acuter dangers when the machinations of the oil barons have driven the coal mines out of production—when the gas industry, being then at the mercy of the barons, might be put out of business.
While these charges have been made many times both in the House and outside it, no proof has ever been submitted that oil is being dumped. Our information is that we are now making more oil products than we are using and that exports and bunkers more than equate with imports. Therefore, unless there is some information about dumping that is unknown to us, that charge must be refuted—

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman will remember that I was trying to state, as fairly as I could, the position as I saw it in Germany. This information was not given to me by anyone in a nationalised industry; it came from private enterprise industry. Will he investigate the basis of the charge I have made in relation to the German pattern?

Mr. George: I am quite certain that the hon. Gentleman gave a completely accurate record of what is taking place in Germany, but that shows how well our own oil companies have behaved. I do not share his fear for the future.
All hon. Members who spoke were extremely pleased at what my right hon. Friend had to say about consultation. Everyone, I think, welcomes the step which has been taken by the chairmen in getting together to ensure that no major change from the use of coal in the gas industry will be made without prior consultation, without the National Coal Board being given a chance to say that it can beat the cost. If the Coal Board can beat it, it will probably get the job. Some benefits have already accrued from this arrangement, and I am glad that hon. Members on both sides have welcomed it so heartily.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hills-borough (Mr. Darling) spoke about the problem of the oil gas plant at Dinning-ton. He made certain charges. I have, since he spoke, made inquiries, and I find that what he told us was, as one would expect, accurate in that the main complaints concern noise, fumes and tar spraying. I have a note here which says that the area gas board is well aware of the noise complained of and is extremely worried about it, but it feels that by the steps it is taking it can bring this down to a reasonable level at no too distant a date.

Mr. Darling: Mr. Darling indicated dissent.

Mr. George: That is the assurance I have. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to see what transpires. As regards tar spillage outside the works, the board has built a wall 2 feet high to prevent this recurring in the future. As regards tar spraying in the atmosphere, the board hopes to stop this or greatly to reduce it by raising the height of the tower and by other improvements. The board recognises that all the problems


to which the hon. Gentleman referred exist, and it is doing its utmost to remove them. The hon. Gentleman said that the Alkali Inspectorate had been approached—

Mr. Darling: No. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood.

Mr. George: I gathered from the hon. Gentleman's speech that he felt it was no use approaching the Alkali Inspector. In fact, he has been approached. The first complaint was received on 28th January and an inspector visited the place on 9th February. The trouble he found to be caused by tar droplets in the cooling water. He fully investigated the matter and curative methods are in hand.

Mr. Darling: The real point is that these plants ought not to be placed in residential areas. There are gas works away from residential areas where, perhaps, they could be put. When I shook my head a few minutes ago about the assurances which are now being given, I meant to indicate that we have had these assurances before from the East Midlands Gas Board about other complaints, not the Dinnington one—I know no more about that—and the assurances have not been completely fulfilled.

Mr. George: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to make that charge. I am quite sure that the board does not give promises and fail to keep them. I know of the area chairman too well to believe that he would deliberately make promises and then break them.

Mr. Darling: No, that is not it.

Mr. George: I am quite certain that these promises were made with the utmost good faith, and the greatest effort will be made to effect a cure or, at least, a great improvement.

Mr. Darling: I am sorry to interrupt again, but I do not want to be misunderstood. The point is, I think, that it is not technically possible to do what I am sure the East Midlands Gas Board would like to do. The technical difficulties in the way will prevent the board's fulfilling the assurances which I am sure it would like to fulfil. They are technical difficulties which arise when this sort of plant is established in a residential area.

Mr. George: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take the promises at the moment in good faith and see what takes place in the future.

Mr. Darling: Yes, surely.

Mr. George: Normally, such plants may not be built in residential areas without the approval of the local authority. In this case, with an established plant, it could be done in that way, but I agree it is advisable as far as possible to set up these plants away from residential property where there is no possibility of creating a nuisance to the householders in the neighbourhood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster raised several very important points. I will deal with the main matter he raised, that the industry should go to the open market for its money. I emphasised at the beginning of my speech that the industry is not entering an era of inevitable prosperity but, rather, an era when it has to fight for its existence. It must invest in research to the maximum in order to prepare for a new future. An industry in that position could not go to the market, and a nationalised industry could not go to the market like that. In any case, in answer to what he said about recommendations of Royal Commissions being rejected—

Mr. Nabarro: The Herbert Committee.

Mr. George: Yes, the Herbert Commission being one of them—

Mr. Nabarro: Committee.

Mr. George: —the Herbert Committee—

Mr. Nabarro: That is better.

Mr. George: In reply to what he said, I will quote the Radcliffe comments on this very issue. In paragraph 595 of the Radcliffe Report on the Working of the Monetary System, speaking about this very matter, the Committee said:
… we therefore recommend that the nationalised industries should continue to look to the Treasury to cover all their permanent requirements.
That is the answer, I think, combined with the fact that this industry is in a period of great transition, and the suggestion made by my hon. Friend is completely impracticable.

Mr. Nabarro: What my hon. Friend is now saying is that the views given in the unanimous Report of a highly distinguished Committee led by Sir Edwin Herbert—and this was its principal recommendation—are impracticable. What is the use of having these Committees if Ministers will not accept their findings?

Mr. George: The Herbert Committee's views were very qualified and not so clear cut as my hon. Friend tries to imply.
My hon. Friend said, quite rightly, that the nationalised industries might be better for being subjected to examination from time to time. I think that a seven-year period was at one time suggested by Lord Morrison of Lambeth, as he now is. But this industry is the industry closest to the Minister himself. We have twelve area boards. My hon. Friend himself admired the system of management. My right hon. Friend is very close to this industry and knows better about the activities of the gas industry than about any other. Moreover, we are again brought back to the point made by my right hon. Friend at the outset, that the industry is in for a fight in the next year or two. Since it is in for a fight, this is no time to say, "I am appointing a committee to sit over your actions and look into everything you are doing". I am not by any means rejecting the proposal that a committee should at some time or another look into the gas industry, but I say that this is not the time. Let us let the industry get through this fight and on to an even keel. Then, if it is wise, we can look into it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster spoke also about smokeless fuels and made certain very valuable suggestions. I assure him that the area gas boards treat this matter with the utmost seriousness. They are doing a great deal of experimenting and research—I have seen it in action myself in a number of area boards—in order to produce the type of fuel for which my hon. Friend asks. There is, as my hon. Friend knows, quite a catalogue of premium fuels on the market, none produced in great quantities.

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. George: Gloco, the British Standard specification coke, is now being produced in great quantities, and its production is to be extended over all the boards in the future. Many of the smokeless fuels made from coal—Warmco, Rexco, Coalite and so forth—are excellent fuels. They are in great demand, and plans for their increased production are in hand. This is not something that either the gas industry or the coal industry is treating lightly. As my hon. Friend said, there is liaison between the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Ministry of Power. When smoke control areas are to be created, there is discussion. We have regional advisory councils which are called in for consultation and asked the question, "If a smoke control area is established here, will there be any difficulty about fuel?" Over 500 orders have been made so far, and not one has had to be turned down because there was not sufficient smokeless fuel available.
It is wrong to say that there has been a great shortage of smokeless fuels. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) said that there was a great shortage, but there really is not. That is not to say that, as the years advance, we shall always be able to keep pace with demand arising from the establishment of new smoke control areas, but it is our desire to do so and every effort will be made by the, area gas boards to produce smokeless fuels in quantities and of qualities sufficient to make the gas industry the basis of the Clean Air Act in the future.
With regard to the pre-packaging ideas, these are certainly very attractive, and I am sure that the people on the area boards will take note of what he has said today. I have seen the American system over many years, and the idea is that a little package should be thrown on the fire so that there is never any dirty fuel touched by hand. My hon. Friend spoke about 7 1b. of gas coke. I am afraid that my hon. Friend does not use much gas coke himself. Seven pounds are burnt away in a very short time in one of the modern fireplaces. His suggestions are worthy of attention and I hope that the gas board will look at them to see whether they are practical.

Mr. Lee: Concerning the supplies of coke, can the hon. Gentleman say how we secure that sufficient is available as new processes come into operation?

Mr. George: I noted that during the hon. Gentleman's speech and intended to reply. We see the gas industry in future as an industry changing from a two fuel industry, but not suddenly, to a one fuel industry, and very slowly getting away from the production of coke through Lurgi and, we hope, by improved Lurgi, and then by hydrogenation. But, for many years, we will look upon carbonisation as a source of supplying smokeless fuel. I do not think we need fear for many years that it will, in fact, fail the country.
Mention was made by the hon. Member for Wigan and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince about experiments being conducted at Partington. These are important experiments. Lurgi and improved Lurgi and hydrogenation are the three processes of producing gas without coke and they are terribly important for the future of the gas industry. Research into the question of coal hydrogenation is vital, but do not let anyone think that it will be a quick job. This is something not assured of success, so let us be frank about it. It has been a task tried many times in the past and we have now reached a point where, according to the Gas Council, there is ground for thinking that a way has been found to the hydrogenation of oil, and experience of that will lead on to a step nearer the hydrogenation of coal. Let no one under-rate the tremendous task that lies ahead in achieving success in the economic hydrogenation of coal. If it is achieved, we shall have done something terribly important for the coal mining industry. As we look ahead, we see demand for coal by the electricity industry slackening with the incoming of nuclear power and there are no other customers on the market of any consequence who will take these supplies after the electricity industry stop taking them. Therefore, it is vital that this matter should be pressed ahead, and I am sure that everyone wishes the Gas Council, or whoever carries out the final experiments, great success in their labours.
Several hon. Members have raised the question of the importing of liquid methane. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Skeet) was very keen that we should go on with the import of liquid methane, and he instanced the effect on the economy of France of importing methane from the Sahara, and

other places. We all know that the discovery of natural gas in many countries has had an important effect on the economy of the nations concerned.
It may well be that after my right hon. Friend has examined all the implications —as he said the information is not before him yet—and if this natural gas, liquefied and transported, shows not a marginal difference but an important difference in cost, it will have to be very seriously considered. Whether or not we can handicap the economy of this country, when other countries such as France, the U.S.A. and Canada have great quantities of natural gas, by turning away one source which could give us help along the line we are all searching for will have to be seriously considered. The line to a cheap therm is of the utmost importance to the gas industry. That is its search day by day.

Mr. A. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman will recall that his right hon. Friend said that the demand for gas for domestic use has gone down. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about the selling side of the gas industry.

Mr. George: The selling side of the gas industry has always been extremely efficient, and great attention has been given in recent years to building it up and to training a sales force to give first-class customer service. There is an excellent sales and advisory service in the gas industry. I am sorry to hear of the conditions prevailing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency where, he says, the sales service was done in pokey offices and where not many appliances were available. I shall look into that matter, because it is by no means symptomatic of the conditions within this great industry.
The industry is searching for a cheap therm and the gas industry will use all the allies it can to bring in, in this holding period of two to ten years, the final discovery of hydrogenation of coal, producing cheap gas and standing four square against the competition of any other fuel industry.

Mr. Norman Pentland: If the Minister is determined to look into the economics of liquid methane, can we have an assurance that he will look at the implications on all sides of its effect on the economy of this country, taking into account the


fears of those in the Durham coalfield where we have 43 pits producing gas coal alone. This would have a serious affect on the Durham coalfields if the right hon. Gentleman were to say that the gas authorities should have to go ahead to sell this liquid methane to any great extent. May we have an assurance upon that?

Mr. George: I think that the hon. Gentleman could not have heard my right hon. Friend's opening speech. He said that before giving authority to the gas industry to import liquid methane he would have regard to all aspects, and that certainly embraces the question of its effect on the production of coal in Durham.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — GAS [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amount which may be borrowed by the Gas Council and Area Boards under the Gas Act, 1948, and to amend that Act with respect to the expenses of the Minister in connection with the testing of gas for compliance with standards prescribed under that Act, it is expedient to authorise such increases in the sums which by or under any enactment are to be or may be charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund raised by borrowing, or paid into the Exchequer as may result from provisions of the said Act for increasing up to five hundred and twenty-five million pounds, in the case of borrowings before the end of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-six, the limit imposed by subsection (3) of Section forty-two of the Gas Act, 1948, upon the aggregate amount outstanding in respect of borrowings by the Gas Council and Area Boards.—[Mr. Wood.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow

RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is part of the family of legislation introduced by successive Governments to ensure that the people may benefit and not suffer harm from nuclear development. There have been the Atomic Energy Act, 1946, the Radioactive Substances Act, 1948, the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, and the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, 1959. One object of each of the last two Measures was to provide temporary ministerial control over the major discharges of radioactive waste.
The quantities of radioactive waste discharged by most users of radio isotopes, such as hospitals, factories and research establishments, are small. Up to the present, they have been capable only of being governed by the law controlling the disposal of ordinary wastes, in particular, the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, and the Public Health (Drainage of Trade Premises) Act, 1937.
The authorities exercising these powers have not always felt competent to decide the very technical problems arising in this new sphere, and advice has been given by my right hon. Friend's Department to the authorities and users of radioactive substances. Other Measures ensuring safety are either in force or are contemplated by my right hon. Friends the Ministers of Labour and Transport.
This general account of the background may serve to put the purpose of the Bill in proper perspective. It is not, except to a very limited extent, a substitute for the existing measures on atomic energy. It is not, as some people seem to have concluded, a general measure to cover all aspects of radiological safety. If it were, it would simply duplicate many of the provisions already on the Statute Book.
The Bill is not concerned with furthering the production of atomic energy, the maintenance of industrial


safety in factories, the prevention of accidents in nuclear reactors, or even the safe transport of radioactive substances. It is not primarily directed to special measures for the protection of special groups of the population—firemen, policemen, transport workers, and so on—although some of its provisions will be of incidental benefits to such groups. It is a Bill to protect the public at large from any adverse consequences which, in a nuclear age, might flow from the uncontrolled discharge of radioactive waste. The whole philosophy of the Bill is that by tackling the subject on this relatively narrow front it will be more effective for that purpose.
There are now upwards of 1,000 users of radioactive substances in this country, and from this variety of users there is bound to be some waste material for disposal. However, the vast majority of users take only very small amounts of radioactive material with very short half lives. Waste from the few big users is already covered by temporary provisions which will be made permanent by the Bill. To make absolutely certain that the country should know the right way to deal with radioactive wastes, in 1956 my right hon. Friend invited the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee to appoint an expert panel to advise the Government. The Report of this expert panel is incorporated in the White Paper entitled "The Control of Radioactive Wastes". The recommendations in that Report have been accepted by the Government and are embodied in this Bill.
The three major principles in the White Paper concerning the machinery provided by the Bill are these. First, the control of radioactive wastes should be a central control exercised by the Government. Secondly, the control should be in two stages: first, the registration of persons keeping or using radioactive material; and, secondly, the authorisation of discharges of radioactive wastes. The third principle, both of the White Paper and of the Bill, is that there should be a national disposal service for waste which cannot be disposed of without risk in the area where it arises. I will try to deal with these three major principles of the White Paper and of the Bill one by one.
First, let me deal with the national, as opposed to the local, character of the control that is proposed. There are two major arguments for this. The first is that nuclear science is so new and the supply of persons expert in it so small that there simply would not be enough of them to staff the many local authorities, river boards, local fishery committees and statutory water undertakings, interested in the control of the more orthodox kinds of pollution. The second argument is that the control of ionising radiations cannot be simply designed to avert immediate danger to health. It must also be designed to avert any risk of genetic hazard.
This second problem is of such importance to the nation as a whole that it cannot be sub-divided according to local areas. The principle of bringing radioactive waste under Government control has been discussed with the various associations of public and local authorities, which have accepted that a national control is the only workable one. So much for the first principle.
I now turn to the second principle, which is that there should be two stages of control. There must be no risk that there might be users with less than the highest standards of care and skill with regard to waste. There must, therefore, be a registration system. There is proposed in the Bill a system involving the registration of premises and mobile radioactive apparatus containing the radioactive material. The object of registration under the Bill is only to control radioactive waste. But for this deliberate limitation of powers in Clause 1 (5), the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend would be able to exercise a general control over any aspect of the use of radioactive material, whatever its purpose, and whether or not the control that they were exercising lay within their normal sphere of responsibility. No such general powers are sought.
The main reasons for the power to register are, first, to prevent users or processes which might throw up excessive or uncontrolled waste, and, secondly, to know in advance of all potential sources of waste and thus help the planning of disposal, which is the main object of the Bill. The second stage of control is the authorisation of disposals of radioactive waste. I repeat


that the object of these controls is first and foremost to safeguard public health. No consideration of industrial convenience will be allowed to stand in the way of that.
The third principle of the White Paper and of the Bill is that there should be available a national disposal service. The Atomic Energy Authority has agreed to act as the agent of the Ministers for two years from the effective date of the operation of the Measure. Arrangements will be made for the costs of the service to be charged to users. This does not mean that the local disposal of radioactive waste will cease. In many cases, local disposal is entirely safe and often is the safest of all methods of disposing of the waste, but the setting up of a national disposal service will deal with those wastes which cannot be safely disposed of by local means. So much for the main principle, both of the White Paper and of the Bill.
To turn to the provisions of the Bill itself, Clauses 1 to 5 provide for the registration of the keeping or use of radioactive materials. Copies of the registration will be sent to the local authorities concerned and will be available through them to other interested public authorities—statutory water undertakers, river boards, local fishery committees, and so on. By Clause 2, the Atomic Energy Authority's premises and, subject to certain provisions, sites licensed under the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, 1959, are to be exempted from registration under the Bill. This is because controls equivalent to registration are already available under the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, and the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, 1959.
Clauses 6 to 8 provide that no one may accumulate or dispose of radioactive waste except in accordance with authorisations by the Secretary of State for Scotland or by my right hon. Friend. Disposals of waste by the Atomic Energy Authority or by nuclear site licensees in England and Wales are also to be covered by authorisations given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food after consultation with the appropriate public or local authorities. Again, local authorities are to receive, subject to considerations of national security, copies

of certificates authorising the disposal of waste.
Clause 9 and the First Schedule to the Bill provide that in the area covered by the new ministerial controls, local authorities shall not be able to exercise parallel powers over discharges of waste in so far as these discharges may be radioactive. This is only fair. The new controls are to be supported by severe penalty provisions and it would be an unwarrantable imposition if the people subject to them were to find that having complied with them, they were unexpectedly subject to separate proceedings by their local authority for the very same thing. If, however, the authorised disposal seems likely to involve any special precautions by a public or local authority, there is a guarantee in subsection (3) of Clause 9 that the authority will be consulted beforehand; and there is provision in subsection (4) whereby the authority may recover the cost of any precautions so taken.
Clause 10 will enable the Ministers to arrange a national disposal service of which I have spoken for waste that cannot be safely disposed of by local means. It will also enable the Ministers to step in and dispose of radioactive wastes where the owner seems incapable of doing so himself. Here again, the cost of any such intervention will be covered by charges made by the Ministers. In subsection (2) of Clause 10 there is a guarantee that the Ministers concerned will consult any public or local authority which seems to be affected by any proposal which he may have in mind to establish a dumping ground for radioactive wastes.
Clause 11 establishes a simple and informal appellate procedure against a Minister's refusal to issue a certificate of registration or authorisation or against conditions which he proposes to attach to it. Clause 12, together with the Second Schedule, provides for the appointment of inspectors and their rights of entry for the purposes of the Bill. Clause 13 provides the penalties.
Clause 14 exempts premises occupied by Government Departments. I emphasise that it is the Government's intention, despite Clause 14, to secure by administrative means that its own premises shall be subject to the same restraints and procedures as it is proposed to impose upon the subject.


Similarly, while subsection (5) of Clause 14 exempts premises occupied by visiting forces, the Minister, by arrangement with whom the premises are occupied, will be under an obligation to make sure that for the purposes of the Bill the premises are conducted as though his own Department occupied them.
In the Bill, we have not used the wide definition of "radioactive" employed in the Radioactive Substances Act, 1948. That was an enabling Act and the definition contained in it could be limited in regulations made under it. Had we used the same wide definition on this occasion, we would have brought under the Bill a great variety of familiar articles— wood, bricks, granite, and even, in certain circumstances, hon. Members of this House. Thus narrower and necessarily more complicated definitions have been used and will be found in Clause 18 of the Bill and the Third Schedule.
Even those definitions have for safety's sake been drawn on the wide side, including too much rather than too little. Provisions have, therefore, been made for classes of premises, radioactive material and radioactive wastes to be exempted if the substances in question, while technically within the definition, are evidently not worth controlling. Clauses 20 and 21 apply the Bill to Scotland and, at the request of the Government of Northern Ireland, to Northern Ireland, respectively.
All this discussion of the various aspects of control may give a quite false impression of imminent menace. Radioactivity is all about us and always has been. Nothing arising from the deliberations of, for example, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, which reported in 1958, or of our own Medical Research Council suggests that radioactive wastes in any shape or form have ever made more than a minor addition to the background radiation to which everyone is subject. It is the belief of the Government, and of the skilled advisers whose recommendations have now been published and incorporated in the Bill, that the application of prudent measures of control will keep it so.
It may be that in the future, the developing use of nuclear energy and of radioactive substances will be regarded as

the second Industrial Revolution. We do not want, as with the great Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century, to welcome the great advances which this makes possible and then to realise, fifty or even a hundred years later, that we have to pay for them, to some degree, in terms of public health. The Bill will take its place with the Measures already enacted as part of the system of control enabling us to realise the maximum benefits of these new developments while avoiding their dangers.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The Parliamentary Secretary has delivered a clear explanation of the purposes of the Bill and I congratulate him upon his clarity. In principle, we on this side welcome the Bill. We have always argued that matters of this nature should be brought up to date. In discussing the nuclear energy industry we are discussing a new industry with new problems. We are discussing also the use of new materials, such as radio isotopes. All these things have created new problems and inevitably the House of Commons must deal with varying kinds of safety measures. Therefore, we welcome the Bill.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is a complicated Measure. Indeed, if we look at page 29 and the number of Statutes which are referred to in the Bill, we see that we are dealing with a Bill involving other legislation on a scale which leads to complications. Moreover, the Bill deals with a controversial scientific subject.
The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to the Government accepting a limited—or, it may be argued, a wide— definition of radioactivity. Here, again, we could be involved in scientific controversy. This is, however, a Bill of major importance. It should be discussed this evening in principle, but I hope that when we reach Committee we shall be able to argue it in greater detail. Obviously, there are matters of controversy concerning detail and I prefer at this stage to confine myself to the main principles of the Bill.
I agree with the Minister for Science who, on first introducing the Bill in another place, said:
The clue to the understanding of this Bill lies in the fact that it is a Bill to govern the


disposal of radioactive waste."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords. 24th November, 1959; Vol. 219, c. 873.]
The Parliamentary Secretary was right to explain in detail that while other problems of safety are involved, including the transport of nuclear materials and the care of workers in installations and factories, the Bill deals purely with the disposal of radioactive waste. In considering the main principles of this Measure we must always bear that in mind, together with the fact that it may however affect the safety of workers in installations.
Obviously, our legislation must be modified and modernised. The Parlia-mentary Secretary has dealt in detail with the various Acts governing nuisances. I could easily become involved in an agricultural argument. The Third Schedule to the Bill mentions the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888, by Section 2 (1, e) of which the then Board of Trade had power to deal with people who sought to put into the sea materials which injured sea fish and sea fishing. Obviously, that Act, as with the similar Act of 1923, the Salmon and Fresh Water Fisheries Act, which refers specifically to parts of my constituency lying on the Solway Firth and to the constituencies of my hon. Friends who are present tonight, although it provided certain powers whereby a fishery board or local authority involved could act to prevent nuisance, could not possibly deal with the new situation concerning the disposal of radioactive wastes in our coastal waters. Obviously, the people who were responsible for these legislative Measures did not visualise a nuclear age, and that is why, inevitably, we must modernise our legislation.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to post-war legislation involving nuclear energy and the securing of safety, the licensing of power stations and also the licensing of stations and installations outside those of the Atomic Energy Authority. Recently, we were discussing in detail the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, 1959. That was an important Act, as was also the Atomic Energy Act, 1954, but even when we consider those two important pieces of legislation we must recognise that on the subject of the disposal of radioactive waste there must be permanent legislation and that it is necessary to consolidate and to improve.
With the development of nuclear energy and research and its application to our power industry, and with the ever increasing use of radioactive materials and of radioactive isotopes in industry, in agriculture, in our laboratories and in our hospitals, it has become urgent to consolidate old legislation and to initiate new. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that in this sphere of activity our scientific thinking and practice have outstripped our legislation. In other words, we politicians are behind the scientists and we must catch up. The Bill is an example of one of the ways in which the House of Commons and Parliament are seeking to catch up with the new techniques which are now being applied to industry and to the whole of our national life.
We must ask ourselves why precautions are needed and what aims we have in mind in this respect. The Parliamentary Secretary was very clear in his definition of aims. Obviously, we need precautions to protect the health of the public and of the workers in nuclear installations and those concerned with the transport of radioactive materials. The Bill seeks to protect the general public and individuals from the hazards of radiation.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the work of various committees and to the Report of the Medical Research Council on "The Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiation". He referred to the whole problem of hazards in relation to our own environment. We had a dramatic illustration of this in April last year when three boys in Scotland handled radioactive material which had been dumped on a cliff. That example showed dramatically to the public the importance of the control of radioactive materials. Fortunately, no harm was done to the three boys, who were brought South to be monitored and tested.
Nevertheless, there are hazards, though it must be agreed that we must keep a sense of proportion in this matter. On the other hand, legislation must lean to the side of caution. Paragraph 266 of the excellent publication by the Medical Research Council to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred states:
In the chapter on exposure levels, the contributions of the various man-made sources of ionizing radiation to the total exposure were


expressed as percentages of the radiation received from natural resources; and it was shown that today the population of this country receives, from man-made sources, a dose of radiation equal to at least one-quarter of that from the natural background. In itself this figure, which amounts to less than 1r over a period of 30 years, can give rise to no immediate apprehensions; but its significance should not be disregarded.
I must make the obvious scientific point that whilst we are considering materials which have only a small effect on radiation in relation to the environment, there is, to use a scientific term, an additive effect which must be borne in mind in our precautions.
After a study of the excellent Report of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, one must agree with the view that as legislators we must lean to the side of caution, because in this matter there is no scientific certainty. Therefore, I agree very much with the Parliamentary Secretary's comments on the need for that caution.
The Bill has undoubtedly been inspired by the work and the recommendations of the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee and the Panel on Disposal of Radioactive Wastes. The Appendix to the White Paper on "The Control of Radioactive Wastes" gives an excellent survey. On behalf of the Opposition I should like to congratulate Dr. Key, the Chairman, Mr. Kenny, Radio-Chemical Inspector to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government who was Secretary of the Panel, and his Assistant Secretary, Mr. Taylor, a Higher Executive Officer at the Ministry. The panel worked very hard over two years to give us the benefit of its scientific knowledge and governmental experience in this matter.
It is true that the Bill is guided by three main principles. The first is national control, the second two-tier control and the third the creation of a national disposal service.
I accept national control, and I think that a study of the disposal of radioactive waste must inevitably lead us to the conclusion that local control is inadequate. I congratulate the Government in that for once they have not been doctrinaire. Perhaps Tory empiricism has moved towards Socialist practice. The impact of new technology and the appli-

cation of new techniques have shattered the world of those who would wish to resist State intervention and the development of national responsibility. Therefore, I congratulate Tory Ministers and the back-benchers who support them upon a wider extension of State control and responsibility. The Ministers have faced the inevitable.
They have derived much of their experience and their judgment from the successes of the publicly-owned Atomic Energy Authority. I say to my hon. Friends that we should not forget that hon. Members opposite are to be congratulated upon their defence of public ownership in matters concerned with atomic energy. As the White Paper shows, in the standards of safety which it observes in waste disposal the publicly-owned Atomic Energy Authority leads the world. Indeed the Report shows that private industry has not caught up with the standards laid down by a publicly owned body. I am glad, therefore, that the Atomic Energy Authority will be responsible for the disposal service for two years.
Since we are dealing with a thousand users of radioactive materials, there must obviously be a comprehensive system of control, and the Parliamentary Secretary carefully explained the Clauses which will deal with that control. At this stage we merely say that national control is inevitable. On the other hand, this does not mean that there should be no local responsibility. I know that many of my hon. Friends would like further explanation of the rôle of local authorities involved in this matter. I understood from the Minister that they are to have copies of the register and of the authorisations in their localities. In addition, there are the fishery committees and also the water undertakers, who control 95 per cent. of our piped water supplies in England and Wales. I am certain that during the Committee stage hon. Members will wish to point out that there could be a need for further certainty about consultation with those important bodies.
I agree with the second principle of two-tier control. I understand that we are to have (a) control of user by registration and (b) control of accumulation or disposal by authorisation. In other words, (a) is used as a means to (b) and registration is to precede authorisation.


It is right that this principle should be embodied in the Bill, but in the end its success will depend on the creation of a national disposal service.
Here we come to the third main principle embodied in the Bill. The Government have accepted the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. Under Clause 10 the Minister may establish a national disposal service and the White Paper states on page 45 that a central authority should be charged with the duty of ensuring that radioactive wastes are disposed of safely. It goes on to define the duty in paragraph 117.
Is there to be a central authority? Obviously the Atomic Energy Authority is to be the agent of the Minister of Housing and Local Government in this case. What will happen after two years? Is it the intention of the Government to create a new authority to be concerned only with disposal? Although the Atomic Energy Authority is concerned with the disposal of radioactive wastes, it has other functions. What is in the mind of the Minister?
Again, will the Authority create its own inspectorate or will the one that works under the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which has considerable experience of dealing with trade effluents, noxious gases and so on, be brought in? During the passage of the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Bill in June and July last year we argued about the main recommendation of the Fleck Committee, which dealt with safety in nuclear sites, concerning the creation of a health centre to be run under the Atomic Energy Authority. Is there to be a national training centre as regards waste disposal?
There is a problem here because there is a shortage of trained personnel. Obviously we must learn from the experience of the Atomic Energy Authority regarding safety in its own installations, and it may be that the inspectors whom the Fleck Committee recommended should be trained should be the people concerned with the disposal of radioactive wastes.
We could get involved in a major debate on disposal. This is not only a local problem; it is also a national one. Indeed, how to dispose of the waste of gaseous liquid and solid radioactive

materials is an international problem. It involves our sewers, drains, drinking water, and it affects agriculture as well as human life. Since we cannot be certain about even the disposal of waste, we must err on the side of caution, and more research is needed. There must be more research on the absorption of radioactive materials—and indeed adsorption—which affect our rivers. There is uncertainty about the sinking of radioactive substances and materials in river beds, so again I say that in discussing this matter we must err on the side of caution. Perhaps I should here point out that the International Atomic Energy Conference held in 1958 revealed a divergence of opinion.
Again, great uncertainty was revealed by the Monaco Conference of 1959. The Report of the Advisory Committee, which is embodied in the White Paper deals with some aspects of deep sea dumping carried out by the Atomic Energy Authority. It shows that there is uncertainty about the disposal of radioactive materials in parts of the Atlantic Ocean, such as the Hurd Deep. Research on oceanography has shown that scientists are not unanimous.
Papers submitted by Russian scientists at the International Conference accept the view that even when wastes are deposited in containers at great depth there is the possibility that after five years some radioactive materials may be carried up. Plankton and other fauna even at those depths may be affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) and I represent constituencies on the Solway Firth which are near to the great works of Windscale and Sellafield and in our area diluted wastes are taken three miles out to sea and dumped.
In no way do I wish to alarm my constituents in Cumberland because I know that the Atomic Energy Authority has taken great precautions and has done much research. It has taken samples of sea, fish, seaweed and sand, and I believe that the dangers to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and myself are remote. However, we hope that the need for a national disposal service will pinpoint the importance of the problem and will emphasise the need to make a careful approach. Indeed the Atomic Energy Authority has


done this in relation to Windscale, where it now monitors continually.
Finally, the disposal of solid wastes will be an important function of any disposal authority. Here, again, there is no certainly. Examining the scientific evidence presented to all international conferences, one can see that even scientists are uncertain. Physical and chemical engineers are still engaged on fundamental research on the subject.
The other day I read part of the evidence given last year to the International Atomic Energy Agency by the United States which is undertaking much research into the disposal of radioactive wastes in certain selected geological formations, particularly salt structures. We have the example of Canada which, for instance, is experimenting with new forms of containers and with the use of glass instead of steel. Countries like Belgium have prohibited the disposal of any radioactive wastes into the sea or rivers on the ground that there might be harm to public health and to native agriculture.
We cannot be certain. There are imponderables. We must create a central authority and have national control and modernise our legislation. We must have a form of consolidation. Above all, we must learn from the experience of the successful publicly owned Atomic Energy Authority. I am glad that that view has been accepted by the Minister. In principle, we accept the Bill, but in Committee we shall give it a great deal of scrutiny.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. David Price: Like the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), I welcome the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on having introduced it so soon after our discussions last summer on similar legislation connected with the protection of the public.
I, too, pay a warm tribute to the work of the panel set up by the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee in June, 1956. Too often, we take the work of these Departmental committees for granted. The Report of the Committee is extremely good, because it is full of information and reasonably short. That is a great advantage, as all hon.

Members will agree. Too frequently, a report with all the facts is so long that it becomes unreadable. This Report gets it about right and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pass on to the panel the view of the hon. Member for Workington and myself, and, I am sure, all hon. Members, that the panel has done valuable work.
The Bill follows a long line of public health legislation in which this country and the House of Commons have so often been pioneers. At times, we are apt to see the deficiencies in our legislation and not take the credit which is due for getting ahead of most other countries. In the narrower field of waste disposal, which is only a part although an important part of public health, a comprehensive range of legislation is already on the Statute Book, as the panel says.
It may be asked what need is there for this Bill? The need for the Bill is that radioactive waste is different from all other forms of waste and effluent with which previous legislation has dealt. It is different because there are inherent risks to the human body from any source of ionising radiation. I draw the attention of hon. Members to paragraph 111 of the White Paper, in which the panel states:
The population is, of course, subject to a certain amount of irradiation from natural sources. It could be reduced by living underground or in homes constructed of thick non-radioactive materials, but the cost and inconvenience would not be considered justified. A similar situation exists with radioactive waste disposal. It is not possible to achieve it without any irradiation of the public. The irradiation can be reduced to a very low level by suitable precautions specified later but further reduction would often require a disproportionate expenditure of effort and money.
To that end, the panel suggested maximum standards of cumulative exposure to radiation to which the public could be safely subjected over a lifetime. Those standards are one-tenth of the maximum premissible limits for occupational workers laid down by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. In other words, we are legislating for maximum permissible standards which are 1,000 per cent. safer than those laid down by the International Commission. The hon. Member for Workington said that we should err on the side of safety and I am sure that we will all agree with that. Erring on the


side of safety to the extent of 1,000 per cent. fulfils the condition which the hon. Member suggested and I am very pleased that we should be erring with such a large margin of error on the right side.
The second reason why radioactive waste is different from normal waste is the difficulty of detecting radioactive substances. Radioactivity cannot be smelt, tasted, or felt, except in extreme cases. The normal radioactive wastes with which we are dealing are not detectable by the normal physical methods by which we detect the filthy smell of waste sulphur, for example, or any of the many waste effluents which we have come across before. Highly specialised equipment is needed to detect it and, more particularly, having detected it, to measure it. It is, therefore, right that this type of waste should be tackled separately.
A third reason why it should be dealt with separately is the damaging effects of an excessive dose of radiation. Those are not immediately apparent, except in very extreme cases, which are very unlikely to arise. In the sort of case which the Bill is intended to cover, it would not normally be apparent to the person concerned, through any physical reaction, that he had been in contact with a radioactive substance. It would be only in later years that that fact would emerge from a deterioration of some part of the body. In a different context, we know with concern, about certain blood diseases, like leukaemia, which can result from excessive radiation on certain parts of the body.
A fourth reason, which is consequential upon the other health hazard of radiation, is the possible genetic damage to future generations. In paragraph 112 of the White Paper the panel says:
There is, however, an additional consideration with radioactive wastes, namely, the need to minimise the genetic damage to future generations, which calls for extra precautions as compared with those taken for other wastes and justifies a closer control over their production and disposal.
It should be made clear that in no branch of medical science is knowledge more slender than it is about the long-term genetic effects of radiation. There is great controversy about the effect of radiation on mutations. Neither I nor any other hon. Member would come down on one side or the other of the controversy. Let us just say that the

issue is open and that there is no likelihood of its being immediately resolved. That is all the more reason why, as the hon. Member for Workington said, we should err on the side of caution.
There is already much legislation pertaining to radioactive waste. I hope that the public does not feel that up to now it has not been protected, and that this Bill is the first effort in that direction. Reference has been made to the Atomic Energy Authority Act, 1954, the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act, 1959, the Public Health Act, 1936, the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, 1951, the Factories Acts of 1947 and 1948, and many more such Measures. The Bill seeks to fill the gaps in that legislation and bring it up to date.
I have four comments to make on the provisions of the Bill. I am very pleased that this matter is being dealt with nationally and not locally. Some very good reasons are given in the White Paper, and there is one special reason why I welcome it. There is a shortage of trained staff to deal with these problems. We must husband our very limited resources, so that they can be used to the maximum effect. Paragraph 134 of the White Paper contains the panel's view on this matter, and says:
We think it very doubtful whether local authorities, water authorities, river authorities and sewerage authorities will be able to obtain in the foreseeable future staff competent to carry out the work and to discuss the subject on equal terms with staffs of hospitals, factories and research establishments which produce wastes. They would have to compete in a market already inadequately supplied, for it is quite plain that there is an acute shortage of the type of person required.
I recall raising a question in connection with the previous legislation last summer. I was then very concerned that proper steps should be taken to ensure that we trained sufficient of the very highly specialised scientists needed for this type of work—specialised both from the medical and from the physical and nuclear engineering points of view. I hope that either tonight, or when we deal with the appropriate Clause in Committee, we shall receive a rather more detailed statement from the Government about the steps being taken to train the necessary staffs.
Secondly, I welcome the fact that there is to be a central inspectorate. Is my


right hon. Friend going to set up his own inspectorate, as a separate organisation from that set up under the Nuclear Installation (Licensing and Insurance) Act, which comes under the control of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power? Will there be two inspectorates? Although I can see very strong argument for there being two, in view of the acute shortage of adequately trained people it might be better to start with one. If my right hon. Friend can reassure me that an adequate number of competent people can be found, I agree that it will obviously be administratively more convenient to have two inspectorates.
Thirdly, I should like to know more about the national disposal service. Like the hon. Member for Workington, I welcome Clause 10, which sets up this service, but I should like some more details about it. I should like to know where the waste is to be disposed of, and how the Government intend to deal with the storage of radionucleoids with long half lives. When they appear in the form of liquid effluent they can be concentrated into the solid form, but they leave behind them a quantity of highly radioactive subtances with very long half lives, which cannot be put into cold storage and taken out safely in a few years' time. Hon. Members know that many radioactive substances have half lives which are very much longer than the half life of this House. I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend has considered using the sea for this purpose.
What action has been taken internationally, as a result of the resolution adopted by the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in April, 1958? I should like to read one paragraph of it, because some hon. Members may not be familiar with it. It recommended
that the International Atomic Energy Agency, in consultation with existing groups and established organs having acknowledged competence in the field of radiological protection, should pursue whatever studies and take whatever action is necessary to assist States in controlling the discharge or release of radioactive materials to the sea, in promulgating standards, and in drawing up internationally acceptable regulations to prevent pollution of the sea by radioactive materials in amounts which would adversely affect man and his marine resources.

I hope that at some stage during the passage of the Bill my right hon. Friend will give some indication of the action that has been taken internationally and by the Government to carry out that recommendation. It is all very well to talk gaily about this being a matter for international co-operation. We have had an international conference, and a recommendation has been made. What has been done about it?
My fourth comment looks a little ahead. Can my right hon. Friend tell me, at some stage during our proceedings on the Bill, what thought has been given to the final disposal of the reactor cores of our current nuclear power stations of the Magnox type, such as the Calder Hall Nuclear Power Station? I was surprised to read, in this otherwise admirable Report that the panel believes that
Eventually, after twenty years or so of operation, the life of the reactor will come to an end, and we consider that there need be no public health hazard in disposing of the materials of the reactor which will constitute a solid radioactive waste.
It it true that there need be no public health hazard, but what will be done about it? Are these reactors to remain as an unusable relic on our landscape? The information I have leads me to believe that it will not be possible to dismantle these reactors, because they are so highly radioactive, and since the main substance they will have been in contact with is uranium, in both its isotopes, both of which have immensely long half lives, I should like a reassurance from my right hon. Friend that in the construction of future power stations consideration will be given to the question of the way in which they will be finally disposed of after their planned life is over. As was said by the hon. Member for Workington, there are more details which we shall discuss during the Committee stage.
I think that we should be clear in our minds that a great deal has to be learned about this problem. I know that my right hon. Friend will keep the matter under constant review. We in this House will be prepared to give time for the discussion of any amending legislation which may be necessary in the light of new knowledge which the scientists may provide. Radionucleoids are substances about which few of us have a working knowledge. To many, they are still part of the great unknown.


Therefore, some of our constituents, understandably, have fears about the physical risks involved in their use.
I think that we can reassure them that when this Bill is on the Statute Book everything will have been done by Parliament, within the limits of our present knowledge, to protect the general public from any radiation risk which might arise out of the careless disposal of radioactive materials.

8.30 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I wish to join in the welcome given to this Bill, the more so because it has been awaited with keen interest, not only by scientists and industrialists, but many public and local authorities which are involved in the disposal of waste and which have been particularly concerned about the disposal of radioactive waste.
Early last year, the Minister sent a circular to local authorities in which he referred to gaps in the existing disposal of radioactive waste. My own local authority was so concerned that is instructed the medical officer of health, if he had not some definite information about what was to be done by last September, to approach the Minister to find out what was happening. Therefore, we welcome the Bill and hope that it will be effective in tightening up the arrangements for the disposal of radioactive waste.
When the Bill was introduced in another place by the Minister for Science, he said that it was as good as the Government could make it. Having been examined in another place, I think it is a little better than when it was originally drafted. But I suggest, in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price), that probably in twenty years' time hon. Members of this House, looking back on this Measure of which the Government and other people are now rather proud, will think that it was a fumbling attempt to deal with a great and very serious problem.
Our knowledge is limited and, therefore, although this Bill is as good as the Government can make it—and I hope that it will be improved still further during the Committee stage—it leaves many questions unanswered and many problems unsolved. We all recognise that no Bill of this kind can be foolproof.

The problems are so great that we cannot expect that. But I wish to emphasise one aspect of the problem which so far has not been mentioned, and that is the part which local and public authorities have to play.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to make the control of the disposal of radioactive waste a national service. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have welcomed that national basis. But, from statements made and from consultations which have taken place, I think that the implementation of its provisions will depend to a considerable extent on public and local authorities. I am glad that the Government—partly, I think, as a result of their experiences with the Nuclear Installations Act—have gone further in connection with this Bill in bringing in local authorities. They are to receive copies of certificates of registration and authorisation, and that is a good thing.
Local authorities have a responsibility. One can say that part of the reason why we are discussing this Bill now— as I think the Minister would acknowledge—is the pressure from local authorities for legislation on the subject, and it would seem important that they should be informed of all the users in their areas.
As I see it, the Bill leaves a gap, and I believe I am correct in saying that the difficulty arises in that at present details about some users are obtained by the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, not under statutory powers, but under confidential arrangements made with the Atomic Energy Authority, which is supplying radioactive isotopes as a commercial concern, and it is not the normal practice to make known the details of such transactions.
I think I am also correct in saying that such transactions will not be notified to the local authorities. The local authorities have asked that they should be notified of all users, and that the notification should be prompt. Again, I am not quite clear from the Bill how soon, in cases where they are entitled to have certificates, they will get them, because the essence of this matter is promptitude. I therefore hope that the Minister will say something about this either tonight or in Committee.
There was also reference in another place to the need for a certain secrecy where some firms were using radioactive substances and might not want to reveal the details of what they were doing to competitors, either in this country or overseas. There again, I would have thought, from everything that has been said tonight, that the feeling of the House itself would be very strong that, if there is any question of a Minister having to decide one way or the other, the emphasis should be on publication, at any rate to the local authorities, rather than an emphasis on the need for secrecy. As has been emphasised already, this is a Bill which is in the public interest, and everything which can possibly be made available in the public interest should be made available.
There is one small point in the Bill itself about which I am a little puzzled with regard to offences. The White Paper, in drawing attention to the need for registration, in paragraph 140, says this:
It is not right that persistently careless or deliberately cheeseparing users should contaminate land, buildings or houses or produce radioactive waste unnecessarily; for ultimately members of the public will be irradiated without adequate cause. If we are to reduce irradiation of the public from this source to the lowest practicable, power to prohibit use is essential. If the registration of all users were decided upon, prohibition could be achieved by withdrawing the user's registration.
Although the White Paper says this, and it seems to me to be an unanswerable argument, in Clause 13 of the Bill, which deals with offences, there is no question of withdrawing registration where an offence takes place. There is provision for fines or imprisonment or both, but not for withdrawing the registration. I should be glad if the Minister could give some indication whether an offender is to be permitted to continue to be registered if he commits such an offence, which I should have thought was a very serious one, and which would not entitle him to remain on the register.
There are one or two other points to which I should like to refer briefly. I am very glad that the Government have now agreed that copies of certificates of authorisation shall be sent to all public and local authorities which have been consulted. I think this is a step forward,

but nevertheless there is still a very limited number of cases in which consultation is called for under the Bill with bodies like river boards and water undertakings. I do not want to weary the House by going into detail as to what these limitations are. There are only three categories which have to be consulted, and I would ask the Minister if he would consider the matter a little bit further. I think we all realise the importance, particularly of river boards and water undertakings, in this connection of the disposal of radioactive waste.
We have had a number of debates recently in this House about the contamination of rivers and about the importance of keeping water as pure as possible. It would seem that the Government have nothing to lose but a great deal to gain by consultation with river boards and water authorities in the wider range of consultations which this Bill would make necessary, and not in the limited ones which have been already agreed under the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act and other Acts.
There is the further point that river boards, water undertakings, fire services, fisheries and other bodies which have an interest in this matter have now been put into a position by the Bill in which they can apply to the local authority to see copies of certificates which that local authority will have available, but there is no obligation on the Minister to send copies of certificates to those other public authorities. There is no obligation in the Bill on local authorities to send copies of certificates to those other public authorities.
The public authorities can go to the local authorities and ask to see copies of certificates, but that is a very cumbersome procedure. How are the public authorities such as river boards to know when a particular authority has received a certificate from the Ministry? Take the example of Middlesex. There are twenty-six authorities there. A river board would have to go to all twenty-six and ask, "Have you got a certificate and can we see it?" The answer which I believe the Minister gives on this point is that he wants to simplify procedure and that it is not practicable to send certificates to all the public authorities involved.
I ask him whether it would not be much simpler for his Ministry to send to all those public authorities copies of certificates and whether that would not be much more satisfactory in the long run? It would ensure that every authority which has an interest in the matter would know exactly what was happening and would be widewake to the problems in its area. That after all is the purpose of the Bill—to make sure that everything possible is done to bring this problem to the attention of those who have a responsibility for it.
In this connection and with regard to the inspectors, I believe that the Minister has in mind that at a certain stage when the number of registrations has become very large he should avail himself of the services of officials of such bodies as river boards. I think that a good thing. This is a point which I hope the Minister will consider very carefully, but while this is to be a national service and we welcome that, there is need for this co-operation between the Ministry and these local authorities and public authorities.
I should have thought the shortage of qualified people to act as inspectors would rather emphasise this need for co-operation. Because there are so few, it will be necessary to utilise all the trained people there are— employees of river boards, in some cases members of staffs of local authorities who specially qualify themselves—to try to get an integration of what is already being done by local bodies with what the Ministry is hoping to do under the Bill. Because of that, I hope that the Minister will give very careful consideration to representations which will be made to him on these points. It was said in another place that the problem with which we are dealing is subtle, invisible and slow-acting, and the purpose of the Bill is to try to guard against the subtle, invisible and slow-acting dangers of radioactive substances in industry, in medicine and elsewhere.
I hope that the Bill will be effective in doing that and that we can make it even more effective in Committee, but I emphasise what has been said earlier— that either tonight or at a later stage of the Bill the Minister should tell us something about the national disposal service and particularly about the dumping of radioactive material into the sea.
There were some alarming articles in the News Chronicle last October in which a picture was painted of the situation in the United States. In one paragraph reference was made to the Industrial Wastes Disposal Corporation of Houston, which seeks a licence to dump in the Gulf of Mexico and which freely admitted that the 55-gallon steel drums in which the radioactive waste is wrapped in concrete would split and that the waste would be diffused into the water. That is the kind of information which the public have been reading, and I have no doubt that it is an accurate statement of what has happened in one part of the world.
We know that there are different points of view among scientists about the problem of dumping into the sea, about the way in which materials travel across the oceans from one part of the world to another and about their effect on marine life and on many of the aspects which are concerned with public health. Because we in this country have a limited land surface, we tend to make greater use of sea dumping of radioactive material than would otherwise be the case.
Although the Bill only, as it were, makes provision for a national disposal service and does not go into any detail on the subject, in the interests of hon. Members and of the general public who, although they may not understand the technicalities of the Bill, nevertheless understand some of the dangers of the problem, I think more information should be given as to what the Government have in mind for the coming years. At the moment, this is a small problem. When the Bill was introduced there were only a thousand users. But the number is likely to grow very rapidly and will be one of the major problems of radioactive waste disposal in the future.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Symonds: I welcome the Bill on behalf of my constituents, particularly because it gives them no cause for alarm, although it covers a very important subject—that of someone accepting a national responsibility for these radioactive substances How that national responsibility is to be accepted and implemented to the fullest extent which is necessary seems to be very vaguely described in the Bill,


and I hope that either tonight or at a later stage of the Bill the Minister will give a further explanation of how national control will be exercised.
It has been said that national control will benefit at least the 1,000 users. Local authorities will be responsible for carrying out much of this work. The amount of work they will have to do is bound to increase as the years pass. We have been told that new power stations will be built. Power stations will be built in other places where some of the waste product comes back to this country. That waste product will have to be disposed of. Will there be a perfect, or near-perfect, national organisation to deal with it? Will the inspectors be fully trained by the time we are using sufficient nuclear energy to benefit our community?
Several questions arise from the Bill which I should like explained. I think that it should be amended in Committee. Clauses 1 to 5 to deal with the granting of certificates of authorisation. That is admirable. The granting of such certificates is vitally important, because we do not want any Tom, Dick or Harry to have the right to export atomic waste.
Clause 7 (1) contains an important provision:
…no person shall … accumulate … any radioactive waste on any premises which are used for the purposes of an undertaking carried on by him.
What type of premises may be used for this purpose? Will it be a properly constituted building? Will it be specially erected? If so, by whom is it to be erected? Is it to have walls of a certain thickness, or may it be an old tin hut in a field?
Clause 7 (2) contains another very important provision. Will the Minister specify the amount which can be accumulated before it is disposed of? Who is to determine the amount which shall be accumulated in one place? According to paragraph 112 of the White Paper, the prominent panel which dealt with this subject said that to minimise the damage to future generations there should be extra precautions as compared with those taken for other wastes. The panel recommended a closer control for the protection of future generations. The prominent and eminent panel said that extra precautions must be taken.

The Minister should reassure us about the intentions of the Government under Clause 7 (1) and (2). What type of premises are they to be and what amount of waste material may be stored at any one time?
There are several other matters in the Bill about which I am very anxious. Local authorities must be consulted in all these matters. Which authority is the Minister to consult? Will he consult the county councils, the borough councils, or the ordinary rural and urban district councils most affected by this disposal?
Local authorities have certain functions to perform. According to the Bill, the Minister can tell a local authority, although it may not agree, that it must accept radioactive waste within its area as there is no other suitable land elsewhere. Will the local authority—and it may be only a small rural or urban district council—have to meet the cost of providing the necessary buildings? Will it receive any assistance at all from the Minister, or will it have to bear the cost and the responsibility itself? An authority may say that it will not accept this waste. Will the Minister then have power to order it to do so?
Clause 9 (5) states that
Where an authorisation granted under section six of this Act requires or permits radioactive waste to be removed to a place provided by a local authority as a place for the deposit of refuse, it shall be the duty of that local authority to accept any radioactive waste removed to that place in accordance with the authorisation….
On the face of it that means that someone can order radioactive waste to be tipped on the normal refuse tip. If it does not mean that, we should be told. If it does mean that, has the medical officer or any health inspector any right in the matter and, if the waste is accepted, what dangers will arise?
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) referred to three boys who were contaminated by radiation in Scotland. We all know what young boys are like, and how they can get into places in spite of apparently adequate precautions. If the radioactive waste is to be put on the local authority's refuse tip, to what radiation perils will children be exposed? Local authorities are greatly interested in many other provisions of the Bill, but it may be possible


in Committee to make suitable Amendments.
Then there is the dumping of radioactive waste in the sea. I emphasise again the interests of my constituents in Whitehaven. The local authority there is trying to develop the beaches for the benefit of pleasure-loving people, yet how can Whitehaven and the beaches there be developed and made safe if more radioactive waste is to be dumped there?
I hope that the Minister will reconsider some of the matters to which I have referred. As more atomic energy is produced and used in this country people in general will become increasingly worried about radioactive waste and its disposal. We can never be too sure in these matters. As has been said, the dangerous part of radioactive waste has neither smell nor taste, but we know that it is there. Let us have all the safeguards that we can. If we do, the Government and the Minister can feel that people generally will be assured that they can look forward to future developments with some confidence in their safety.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I shall be brief because I know that some of my hon. Friends wish to speak on this very important matter. It is rather shocking to see so few upon the Government benches, because this is a Bill which in its application may affect millions of people yet unborn. We are setting up a central Government authority which will have tremendous powers over the whole country. It is primarily to Clause 10 that I wish to address myself.
There have been many complaints during the last five or six years about the habit of Ministers of the Crown, when they are interpreting an Act of Parliament which involves local authorities, of looking upon the word "consultation" as meaning that they, the Ministers, may draw up a plan here in Whitehall, with the assistance of their officials, decide that something shall be done, and do no more than inform the local authority concerned that that is what they intend to do. That is all that "consultation" has been in the past.
On television the other night, certain district councillors in Hampshire complained about the river board and the

Government interfering with the course of the Hampshire Avon. "For some years now", they said, "we have received decisions from the central Government and, whatever protest or suggestion we or the farmers or others may make, the Government still go on to do what they think fit in Westminster, and consultation has meant no more than that".
By Clause 10, the Minister takes unto himself powers to prepare plans and make decisions. He can go to a local authority, which will be his agent, and demand that certain things be done. There is a great danger that consultation will amount to no more than informing the local authority what the central Government has decided. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) is quite right to express his fear that decisions may be made which will merely be handed on to the local authority, without consultation with the local authority, the fishery boards, the Ministry of Agriculture, local farmers or other interested bodies. The same sort of thing happened in Ayrshire about Prestwick. The Government made a decision and informed everybody locally what they intended to do. They even set up a local inquiry. But all the views and complaints of the local people were overridden by the central Government as they steamrollered their decision through.
This is too important a matter to allow that kind of thing to happen. The central Government will have to use the local authorities on the spot. Wherever radioactive substances are being used, the local authority will have to be the instrument of the central Government. If it is to be an effective instrument, there must be complete co-operation between the central authority and the local authority.
This is a matter about which we cannot afford to make mistakes. In most of our legislation in the past, and in most of the things that we have done in our domestic affairs, we could afford mistakes. Mistakes could have been made in administration and in many other directions, but we could correct them at a later period. If mistakes are made in this case, then the results may be disastrous. We cannot afford anything slipshod. There must be full consultation—not just information when something has been decided—with all the


people who have expert knowledge of this matter before the central Government decide on any particular plan of radioactive waste disposal.
I come to the question of dumping in the sea. Many people with fishing or agricultural interests feel that before there is any intensive development of radioactive processes in this country we should bring together expert oceanographers. We know from the report of what happened in the Gulf of Mexico that the huge barrels of steel and concrete burst after a certain time. We want to know where the radioactive substances are carried and what are the ocean currents.
It may be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven said, that the radioactive waste deposited 20 miles from his coast line may be carried by the Gulf Stream to the Hebrides. We in Scotland would welcome some flow of energy into Scotland, but not in this form. There are enough threats of things which we dislike being brought to Scotland without dumping radioactive waste into the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream is very beneficial to the west coast of Scotland. Do not let us destroy this beneficial use by putting radioactive waste into the Gulf Stream. Therefore, I think the Government should consult oceanographers to see just where the ocean currents go, so that we know exactly what we are doing when we dump this waste.
Another point is that there has been no mention of discussion with representative bodies of those employed in industry. This is very important indeed. I remember that when we discussed the Nuclear Installations (Licensing and Insurance) Act we had the same argument. It is most important, in my view, that wherever nuclear energy is being used and there is danger of radioactive substances being thrown off by processes, those who represent and are in daily consultation with the workers in those industries, in general the trade union movement, should have knowledge of the substances which they are handling in the factories.
I have myself seen men go into a factory and almost commit suicide. I have seen men do things quite ignorantly because neither the management nor anyone else has taken sufficient thought to inform them. I well remember the

introduction of degreasing plants many years ago, when we had casualty after casualty as a result of men passing through the plants smoking cigarettes and through the lighted cigarette inhaling dangerous fumes. It is the same with this substance, which cannot be tasted or seen. It is absolutely imperative that when places are registered and authorisation is given workpeople and their representatives should be circularised. It would be as well if an expert from a Government Department addressed workmen in factories as soon as they became registered.
In the shipyards, there is a man who runs up and down inspecting the weld in the hulls of ships. Regulations about this sort of thing are laid down, but many are broken. Many unnecessary risks are being taken in the interests of speedy production. We hear a lot about restrictive practices, but there could be a little restriction in practice where very dangerous substances are being used. Registration followed by authorisation is a good thing. As legal instruments they are good, but they must be administered efficiently in places where dangerous substances are being used. It is the job of men in industry and of local authorities to ensure that they are administered efficiently.
I hope that in Committee everything possible will be done to strengthen those aspects of the Bill so that the users and disposers of radioactive waste shall be fully disciplined to ensure that, as far as is humanly possible, we shall not do things which create danger to ourselves and lay death traps for the generations that follow.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and my other hon. Friends, I welcome the Bill. If I understand it aright, first it introduces a registration system for all users of radio-isotopes and radioactive substances. That in itself is a big step, particularly bearing in mind the amount of radioactive substances and isotopes which has crept into industry, agriculture, medicine and, in particular, the laboratories. Secondly, I understand that the Bill introduces a control system over all radioactive accumulations and waste deposits. We therefore envisage that when the Bill becomes an Act there


will be national control with a national disposal service operating on behalf of the public, particularly for its safety.
The Bill is an agreed Measure. We on this side think that it is urgently required. It is an attempt to plug a gap in our atomic energy legislation which has existed for some time. I also hope that it will be effective enough to plug ail the leakages that have taken place about highly dangerous substances. Luckily, so far we have had none of significance, apart from the Windscale accident. Now that we have adopted the enclosed reactor policy I do not visualise any more accidents of this type.
In talking about the Windscale accident, I am reminded of what the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) said about the future of these reactors, which have only a life of twenty years. What is to happen to them? I put this matter to the Prime Minister some time ago. It exercised my mind a great deal at that time. I was worried about Windscale because it is one large radioactive dump, a gaunt, grey structure that will haunt us for many years. This will be true of all these structures. Twenty years from now, we shall have a dozen of them dominating the landscape. What will happen to them? I suggested at the time that we should explore the possibility of building the nuclear furnace underground in a proper container so that when the life of the reactor had ended, it would be possible completely to cover it in and register it as one of the waste dumps. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this when he winds up the debate.
I have in mind only three points. The first concerns staff. Many times, I have queried how often we lose scientists, technologists and engineers who go abroad to Canada and the United States on research scholarships and who never come back to this country. The report of every committee that we have set up, particularly dealing with atomic energy —for example, the Fleck Report, the annual reports of the Commission and the White Paper, which is the finest document produced on atomic energy since the industry was born; I pay tribute to the Committee which produced it—has stressed the fact that we are short of the necessary number of

scientists, technologists, engineers and, for the implementation of the Bill, inspectors, too.
In subsections (1) and (7), Clause 12 deals particularly with inspection. We are giving power to set up an inspectorate service particularly to control these radioactive wastes. Although the Minister may say that only a few inspectors will be required, we must recognise that we have only just started the process. We are now attempting to grasp the nettle. In due course, it must be internationally controlled. Therefore, we shall require a growing force of people who are expert in monitoring and in the analysis of samples. We shall want a lot of people for monitoring purposes alone, for the aqueous discharges into the sea, discharges into the air, the rivers and the sewers and the registration of those which are dumped inland also. If we are to have a national control organisation and disposal service, we want highly competent, efficient and well-trained men for the job.
I will quote to the Minister a letter which I received recently from America, from one such scientist who has left this country and who now tells us why. It is a short letter. It reads:
You are quoted in the January 16th issue of Nature as saying that a serious attempt should be made to ascertain why so many good scientists, technologists and engineers accept research scholarships in the United States and Canada and fail to return. Speaking as an English student who has had a scholarship for the past two years at the Pennsylvania State University, I think the answer to this question is simple: money.
The financial attractions of working in the United States are very great indeed. Let me give you a few examples. A newly graduated Ph.D. may expect to obtain a salary worth (to compensate for the difference in the cost of living I am assuming an exchange rate of five dollars to the £) about £1,600 per annum. At home he would get about £800 or £900. With a few years' experience in industry, as is the case with myself, a Ph.D. here may expect a salary which would be worth about £2,000 per annum, as compared with about £1,200 at home.
One friend of mine came over here about a year ago. At home, he was getting about £1,200 per annum. Over here, his salary is worth almost £3,000 per annum. A second English friend of mine had been earning over here a salary worth about £2,500. He returned to England at the end of last year and he tells me that so far he has been unable to get an offer of £1,500 per annum.
Can we wonder that we are losing so many of our skilled people who have


received their initial training here and that the United States and Canada are receiving all their knowledge?
I therefore stress that in all our technological and nuclear advances since the war the most acute problem has been how to maintain and keep these men, who are rich in industrial experience and who can apply it in the nuclear field. Therefore, the Minister must have in mind, first of all, that these inspectors must have satisfactory salary scales because otherwise we shall not keep an effective force.
Secondly, I should like to see developed a code of symbols easily recognisable for every radioactive isotope and radioactive substance container. I have in mind their increased use in industry, agriculture and medicine and the fact that these substances are going out in containers on the roads and railways and that they are being stored in many places, including hospitals. There are bound to be many accidents from which fires will develop. Therefore, the police, and particularly the fire services, should be able immediately to assess the degree of danger from the container of radioactive material. Otherwise it means that every local authority must keep a list of all deposits of radioactive materials in their areas. They must also send that list to the police and the fire services so that it may be available at any moment.
Unless that develops, I should like to see this code of symbols thought about seriously, so that a policeman or a fireman in his natural training will acquire the knowledge, having in mind the symbols, of the degree of danger, especially if he is called to attend at the scene of an accident or a fire. I should like to know whether any thought is being given to this and, if so, whether anything can be done.
As to the accumulation of stocks of waste, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency radioactive wastes are piling up at the rate of 11 million gallons per year. Bearing in mind that the industry is only in its infancy, it will be seen that this will be a terrific problem in years to come. I congratulate the Minister that at least he has grasped the nettle and brought in a Bill to enable us to tackle the prob-

lem, but as the hon. Member for East-leigh said, ultimately there is bound to be international control over this contamination. My hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) mentioned the same point.
It is easy for this matter to get out of hand. Dr. T. C. Carter of the Medical Research Council told a conference recently that
Levels of man-made radiation in the United States may cause inherited health defects to rise to 500,000.
That appals me and it should cause the House some concern. We must never allow that threshold to arise in this country.
I can feel fairly safe, inasmuch as our safety in the development of atomic energy has impressed all international observers who have come to this country to investigate it. I hope that the Bill will take that matter a stage further. What survey has been carried out of these radioactive accumulations and waste deposits, of the stocks in hospitals, of the quantities used in industry? What investigation is taking place of what is being done in agricultural research and of how much radioactive material is being put out for research work in universities? These factors should be easily checked, but what about others?
I remember that a year or so ago there was a case of a person who was working at home on work farmed out from a factory. He was using luminous paint and he contracted leukaemia. Shortly afterwards, the house having been monitored, much of the furniture and floor covering were found to be radioactive. All this material had to be burned and there was left a pile of radioactive waste which in turn had to be dealt with safely.
A great deal of this sort of thing must be going on. What checks are being carried out? There was the incident which my hon. Friend the Member for Workington mentioned where, without any control of any kind, clocks bearing luminous dials were dumped outside a clock-making factory and three children inadvertently stumbled on the stockpile. A great deal of this kind of thing must be happening. Therefore, the Minister should make a greater assessment of all the waste, particularly from smaller sources which accumulate in the country.
We should ask ourselves to what extent we can eliminate much of the radiation in common usage if it is not strictly necessary. I have in mind luminous watches, shoe X-ray machines, unnecessary X-ray examinations in hospitals. None of these is harmful in itself, but an accumulation could have a telling effect. Why should we allow these things to be produced if there is no strict requirement for them? I wear a luminous wristwatch, but I have no use for its luminous dial. Many people have no choice when they buy watches today because nearly all have luminous dials. Can we take steps to eliminate a lot of the man-made radiation if it is not necessary?
We could cut out much of the mystery surrounding the subject which is tending to frighten people unnecessarily. I remind the Minister of the scare in Yorkshire a few months ago and I would like him. if possible, to clear this up in his concluding remarks. I refer to an accident which was mentioned by Sir Ernest Rock Carling, who is a member of the panel which produced the White Paper. Addressing a conference at the Royal Society of Health, he mentioned this accident which took place in a hospital where a steriliser containing radium needles boiled dry, the solder melted, the container ruptured and radium was freely distributed in the area of the steriliser. Because of this, brickwork, window frames, flooring, nurses' shoes and garments—in all some tons of radioactive contaminated material—were collected and dumped in a disused mine shaft. Sir Ernest did not say whether the mine was in Lancashire or Yorkshire, whether it was a coal mine or a lead mine. Consequently, many local authorities were worried. They have a right to know if this radioactive waste was dumped in their area. Having forewarned the Minister, I am hoping that he will say that there is no reason to shroud radioactive dumps in mystery. Let us be aware of them and know that they are harmless. In that connection this Bill may be effective.
I am pleased with the Bill. We have been waiting for it a long time and we are pleased that it has now reached its Second Reading in the House of Commons, having gone through its various stages in the other place. We must keep a close watch on the introduction of

radioactive substances and ensure that there is no careless or casual use of them in industry or medicine. We must encourage their use, but only under strict control. Of course, we must not cramp the introduction of new techniques because industry, medicine and technology will benefit immeasurably from the small radioactive isotopes and substances. In that spirit I hope that the Bill will commend itself to the House.

9.30 p.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I join with my hon. Friends in welcoming the Bill. I am glad that the Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland is on the Government Front Bench, because the Bill will affect Scotland as much as England and Wales. I do not claim to speak on behalf of Scotland, or on behalf of my hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies, but I want to deal with this subject from a national point of view.
The Bill has been long-awaited. A year ago, when I was trying to find some of the evidence which surrounded the accident at Wishaw, as a newcomer to the subject I was shocked to discover the extent of the chaos and confusion in the temporary controls which then existed. I was shocked to discover that there were involved the Atomic Energy Authority, the Department of Health for Scotland, the Alkali Inspectorate, local authorities—not only the medical officers of health but the fire services—river boards and, slightly improbably, the Army, the Army being responsible for carrying out the disposal of the waste, taking it to sea, and so on. Those of us who have been concerned about the chaos of the temporary controls warmly welcome the Bill.
However, I have some criticisms and some queries. Without making any reflection on the Minister himself, or on his colleague the Joint Undersecretary, I am a little puzzled to know why the disposal of radioactive waste should be held to be the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government. We had no justification of that from the Parliamentary Secretary. This is essentially a matter of health and, while there may be good reason for the Minister of Housing and Local Government taking responsibility, it is difficult to see why the Minister for


Science, for example, who has immediate and ready contact with expert physicists able to give advice on several aspects of the work to be undertaken under the Bill, and who is able to contact the Medical Research Council, has not been made responsible, or why the Minister of Health should not be the appropriate Minister to deal with this matter. I hope that we shall be told why the right hon. Gentleman is assuming responsibility.
I, too, want to refer to the rôle of the local authorities. We are too easily accepting the violation of a fundamental principle of local government, that local authorities are responsible for ensuring that precautions are taken to protect the health of people living within their areas. That is a most important principle of local government which has evolved throughout the history of local government since the days of Sir Edwin Chadwick in the 1840s, and we should not lightly exclude the powers of local authorities in this matter without giving it much thought and without better reasons than we have yet been given.
It is not enough to say that we must deprive local authorities of powers so that people are not prosecuted twice for the same offence. That is not a sufficient reason for completely changing one of the important principles on which local government is based.
I want to refer to the incident at Wishaw in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). As is generally known, this accident arose because there was no proper certainty that the dump which contained radioactive waste was adequately protected from public access. In one of the proceedings of the Geneva Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, there was an American paper about land burial of radioactive waste substances, which is just as applicable, if not more applicable, to dumps where waste is stored before disposal action is taken. The paper made the point that ground stores should be fenced and well identified and that access by unauthorised persons should be prohibited.
Can the Minister tell us whether he accepts that as a good principle for storage prior to the collection of radioactive waste products, and, if he does,

whom he regards as being responsible for ensuring that access is prohibited, that fencing is carried out. and that dumps are well identified, if local authorities are only to be consulted and are to have no powers?
This is a point of considerable practical importance to us all, because we all live in areas where dumps of this kind may be made, which could be available to children. As a result of the accident at Wishaw a resolution was passed last year by the Scottish Conference of the Labour Party, which was later supported wholeheartedly by many important Scottish organisations, including the Association of Medical Officers of Health, some county councils and other local authorities. I want to mention one paragraph of that resolution, because it is being ignored in this deprivation of local authority powers.
The resolution asked for a register of sources of radioactivity to be made. That is being done under the Bill. It also asked for a tightening up of the provisions concerning the disposal of waste. That is also being ensured by the Bill. But thirdly, it asked that local health authorities should be responsible for determining whether or not there were adequate safeguards to prevent public access to sources of radioactivity. Consultation with local authorities alone will not be adequate. I hope that we shall deal with this matter very fully in Committee, and that the Minister will find himself able to make some modification of the Bill in this respect.
I do not know how aggressive have been the representations of local authorities in England and Wales on this point, but I have been informed by my hon. Friends who represent Glasgow constituencies that representations have been made by the Corporation of Glasgow, which is one of the largest local authorities in Britain. The Corporation says that it thinks that the Bill is inadequate, and that it should be amended to preserve the powers of local authorities under existing legislation. Here is at least one large and important local authority which shares the view put forward by so many hon. Members on this side of the House.
The matter is equally important in that certain powers are being taken from river boards. I know of several people who are closely associated with the work


of those boards who feel strongly on this point. Not long ago a scientific paper referred to the disposal of low-level radioactive waste which might be released through the public sewer system, directly discharged into sewers, or disposed of in a way which affected river boards in one way or another. It said that workmen should not work on or enter areas to do work until the level of activity had been determined, and then only under the advice and supervision of a health physicist.
Who is to safeguard workers engaged on this kind of job if river boards and local authorities have no powers in the matter? I hope that the Joint Undersecretary of State for Scotland will be able to inform his right hon. Friend what representations have been received from Scottish authorities concerning the deprivation of local authority powers under the Bill.
My third point concerns the question referred to by other of my hon. Friends, namely, the assumption which the Bill makes that the disposal of radioactive waste into the sea can be safe and need not be questioned. There are many things which scientists are doing, and many words which they are uttering, of which Governments are taking far too little notice. I visited Windscale three or four days after the accident. I spent two days there, talking to many people. One was an official of the Atomic Energy Authority. I asked him, "Do you make recommendations about safety to the Atomic Energy Authority?" He said, "Yes." I said, "And does the Atomic Energy Authority accept them?" He said, "Not always." That was a shocking revelation to me.
The Government seemed to be falling into the grave danger of not taking enough notice of the words of warning uttered by some of our scientists. They always seem to deal wih the matter on the assumption that something is safe because there is no knowledge about it. Would not it be far safer for the public if, when there is no knowledge, they assumed that it was not safe?
I believe that we ought to be considering the disposal of radioactive waste into the sea much more intensely and with much greater seriousness. As everyone knows, there have been a great many scientific discussions about the best

method of disposing such waste. There has been the suggestion that it should be buried in containers under the ground, that that is the best means of disposing of it. Others consider that it is better to put the waste into tanks. Against that opinion it has been argued that the radioactive waste may have a half-life of hundreds of years, but that the tanks or containers are likely to corrode after 50 years or 75 years, so that land burial does not seem to offer a safe solution.
There has been the suggestion that the waste might be disposed of in remote areas. Although this would be a cheap method, it has been argued that it would be dangerous, because nobody knows what future use may be made of these remote areas or their geological content. There is also the method of ocean disposal, which seems to be the solution most favoured by scientists who have been considering the alternatives of dilution and disposal or concentration and disposal. It has been pointed out that many of the assumptions regarding the safety of disposing of things deep under the sea, where there are no currents, are based on false premises. Additional investigation has shown the falsity of some of the assumptions on which the scientists have worked.
If containers are dropped from a height so that they might be buried in the sea mud, it is unlikely that they will be so buried. One scientist at Geneva said that we should not know where the waste was. We know nothing of the fate of any radioactive waste freed in the deep sea. This is a great challenge to the Government and to us all. Public opinion on this matter is very strong. I wish to quote from what was said by scientists at the Geneva Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy. One said:
Time is short and public health must fulfil its obligation by intelligent control so that general exposure to radiation background will not soon reach levels from which there is no return.
Here one might refer to the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price), who said that under the Bill precautions were 1,000 per cent. safer than for those engaged in occupations which gave rise to radiological hazards, and point out that the larger the population at risk the greater the precautions


which must be taken. I am thinking not in terms of individual damage, but in terms of the generic harm which can result from a tiny amount of exposure of one kind or another. We know that every minute increase in the general level of radiation can produce mutations in the future. No one knows how great they may be or how high is the permissible level which is safe.
Another scientist said:
The amount which is required to double the spontaneous mutation rate in man is not known.
Its effects are irreversible and inescapable. The fact that they are irreversible must cause us great concern. An American scientist said:
I believe that at some point the decision involving an educated gamble with man's future will have to be made and history of the past indicates that such a decision may be made on the less rather than the more conservative side.
The House will appreciate in which sense he was using the word "conservative" on that occasion.
As has been pointed out, there are as many points of view about how these discharges may be controlled as there are sources of problems. I submit that, in these circumstances, with this level of scientific knowledge, we are not safe to assume, as this Bill assumes, that the disposal of radioactive waste, whether of high activity or low activity, in the sea offers us any safeguard for the future, not only of our own people but of the genetic future of mankind. We are concerned with tremendous issues, which we do not seem to be fully appreciating. I think that our responsibilities are so great that we must take heed of public opinion.
My last quotation is also from something that was said in Geneva about public opinion and Governments in this matter. Another American scientist said:
We should discuss the possibility that public opinion may become less sensitive in time to the controlled release of radioactivity into the environment may become a more acceptable procedure.
Another said:
 At present, public opinion is no doubt the controlling factor, and it is perhaps even more restrictive than is sometimes desirable. When, however, public opinion has become more acquiescent—as is bound to happen—

I feel it will be the duty of governments and scientists to evaluate the limits of release and to enforce them.
I feel that many of us would hope that no Government will ever come to the point where it feels that public opinion on this matter has acquiesced, so that things might be done which endanger our future. The only thing that can be of help in this matter in the long term is control at the international level, and until such control at the international level is achieved, it will be far better and far safer for our national future and for the future of mankind to store radioactive waste in safety rather than disperse it dangerously.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I do not wish to make another speech in detail, but if I may have the leave of the House, I should like to sum up quickly. I think that the Minister will agree that we have had an excellent debate, even though it has been a short one, in which those hon. Members who have taken part have made very constructive proposals. No doubt, we shall argue them in detail when we come to the Committee stage.
I should like to stress again what my hon. Friends on this side of the House and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) have been arguing—the need for caution. It has been argued very strongly, particularly by my hon. Friends the Members for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), Lanark (Mrs. Hart), Barnsley (Mr. Mason), Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds), that there is need for proper local consultation. While I myself welcome the main proposals of the Bill and the need to have national control, there must be local consultation, and, indeed, that is provided for in the Bill. On how that consultation will take place there is still uncertainty, and I hope that the Minister, if not tonight, will be able to give detailed answers during the Committee stage.
One other point I should like to stress is how much we all agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark, that in this matter there must be certainty. I would argue, as I have done before, that here the scientists are in advance of the politicians, even on the international level. Reading the documents of the International Atomic Energy Agency, we see how the scientists of the Soviet


Union, America, our own country, France and other countries have got together, have broken through the barriers and have been thinking ahead.
We, the politicians, have not caught up. It, is our job to catch up. That is why I know the Minister will agree that, although this is a matter of policy, we shall have to have international action and there will have to be international agreement in this matter of the disposal of radioactive wastes which affect the high seas and go beyond our national boundaries.
Even in our own country there must be national action and the House of Commons must go ahead of public opinion. We must take the initiative. In some fields, for example, in the disposal of radioactive wastes, we do not know the geological structures. I dealt with this in my first speech today as an example of how we are lagging behind. We have not yet completed a proper geological or geophysical survey. I asked questions about this two or three years ago, but we have still not concluded a proper geological survey. Then there is the problem of attracting skilled personnel, as was rightly referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley.
I congratulate all hon. Members—the hon. Member for Eastleigh and my hon. Friends—who have made constructive suggestions in the debate. I hope that the Minister will realise that we are trying to be helpful and that he will give a helpful reply.

9.52 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I have listened as carefully as I could to every word in this debate. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the interesting speeches they have made and the thought which, quite clearly, they have devoted to this topic.
The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart), in his opening speech—and I greatly welcomed the tone he set in that speech—suggested that we might confine this debate to main principles and keep the details for Committee. As the discussion went on, I was conscious that we were getting on to a great number of matters which essentially were Committee points, so if I am not able to answer everything this evening I hope

hon. Members will forgive me. I shall try to answer as many of the questions as I can, because it may be helpful to the Standing Committee if I act in that way.
It was extremely gratifying to hear the tributes paid from both sides of the House to Dr. Key's panel and its two secretaries from my Department. They did work which is of great value, not only to Parliament while we are discussing this Bill, but to the country at large. I hope we shall not get into the mood of distrusting everything the experts tell us. I felt that if the argument of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) were carried to its logical conclusion we might never be able to believe anybody because this subject was so difficult.
My approach to it is that we must take the utmost care. There is a great deal still to be learned. We must therefore avoid taking risks, but must not be so pusillanimous as to sit down and say that because we do not know everything we must do nothing. If we were to follow that to its logical conclusion we should have to close down Windscale and Calder Hall and say that there was to be no nuclear development for civil purposes in this country at all.
What we therefore have to do is to frame legislation which is based as carefully as we can base it on the vast knowledge that is available at the present time. The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), in her interesting speech, said that twenty years hence the Act we are now seeking to frame might be thought a fumbling attempt. It may well be thought simple compared with the legislation framed then, but I would rather hope that we shall look back on it as we look back on the first Alkali Act of nearly one hundred years ago, which was simple by comparison with present legislation, but is regarded by all those who are familiar with that subject as a landmark in the history of State control of noxious fumes.
I should like to make some further reference to the Alkali Inspectorate. The hon. Member for Workington said that here was a Conservative Government persuaded to accept the principle of State control. Of course, in the Alkali Acts we accepted the principle of State control of certain processes in suitable circumstances almost a century ago before there


was any Labour Party. I would judge that in the operation of the Alkali Act, through the Alkali Inspectorate, we have set an example from which a good deal can be learned for the subsequent operation of this Bill, because there we have the central Government inspectors cooperating closely with the local authorities and, as far as I am aware, although obviously there are criticisms from time to time, the general attitude of local authorities towards my Alkali Inspectorate is that it is as helpful as it possibly can be to the local authorities. My concern certainly will be to seek to establish the same kind of relationship and the same degree of mutual good will.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanark, though she indicated that there was no personal intent in it, asked why the Minister of Housing and Local Government should come into this. The answer is that for many years the holder of my position has been responsible for what are called the environmental health services, and the Alkali Act deals with one of them. My responsibility in matters of water, sewage disposal and so on is another example. That is how it comes about, and I am sure that it is right. In Scotland it comes under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanark also alleged chaos and confusion before this Bill was introduced. I was certainly anxious to introduce the Bill as soon as possible, but a great deal of preparatory work had to be done, as I think hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise. If the allegation of chaos and confusion is an allegation that there has been a great deal of damaging carelessness, that is simply not true.

Mrs. Hart: I referred to chaos and confusion in the existing legislation. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that legislation was carried out in the most effective way possible.

Mr. Brooke: We will not cross swords about this. My concern was to try to destroy any impression that public authorities of any kind have been careless or reckless about this. I quite agree that we need to tighten up the arrangements and to systematise them. That is the purpose of the Bill. But it is fortunately our boast and pride in this coun-

try that, with this new scientific invention affecting more and more people, nevertheless our ad hoc systems of control have up to the present been remarkably effective in protecting human health.
A number of hon. Members possibly have an exaggerated idea of the national disposal service. It is not contemplated that that service will be called into operation for more than a relatively small percentage of the total radioactive wastes. Certainly it is expected that the vast majority of them can and should be disposed of locally. They will be under authorisations from the Minister, and the Minister will be bound to advise the local authority or other public body concerned if special precautions need to be taken in respect of any particular waste from any particular registered premises.
There will be therefore three types of waste. First, there will be those which can be disposed of with no danger to anybody. Secondly, there will be those which can be disposed of locally but in respect of which special precautions will be necessary. In that case the Bill empowers the local authority or public body concerned to make appropriate charges for the extra cost to which it is put. Thirdly, there will be those wastes which are of such a dangerous or intractable character that they must be disposed of nationally. For that purpose we have reached an agreement that the Atomic Energy Authority will for the next two years act—

It being Ten o'clock the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on the Radioactive Substances Bill [Lords] and on the Water Officers Compensation Bill [Lords] exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Brooke]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Brooke: I was saying that we have reached agreement with the Atomic Energy Authority that for a period of two years it will act as agents for the Ministers in providing the national disposal service.
I have been asked what we have in mind beyond those two years. We have in mind that those two years will give us an opportunity to see what the best plan is. It may be that the Atomic


Energy Authority will continue, and be willing to continue, to act as agents. It may be that the experience of those two years will lead us to fresh views. I trust that the whole House will value the fact that we are to have the whole cumulative experience of the Authority available to us now and that, for the next two years at least, the national disposal service will be in those excellent hands—the Authority acting as agents for the Ministers concerned.
The hon. Member for Workington asked what was to be the central authority. The central authority in Scotland will be my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It will be myself in England and Wales.
I was asked about the Inspectorate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) pursued that question. He suggested that this might possibly be merged with the Inspectorate of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. I wish to tell my hon. Friend and the House that that possibility has been very thoroughly investigated, but the conclusion has been reached that it would not be a wise course. The qualifications and functions of the two Inspectorates will be somewhat different. The Ministry of Power inspectors are primarily required to have a knowledge of nuclear reactors. My inspectors under the Bill are primarily required to deal with discharge of waste radioactive materials. It is true that a radio-physicist or a radio-chemist could do either job, but the Minister of Power inspectors will be primarily radio-physicists. The inspectors operating under the Bill will be primarily radio-chemists. As the two jobs require different forms of specialisation in different aspects of radioactivity, we have reached the conclusion that no advantage would be gained by merging the two inspectorates.
There are at the moment two inspectors in my Department able to deal with questions of radioactive waste. We are in process of appointing a further two, and we shall gradually build up. As one or two hon. Gentlemen said, it is not likely that a large inspectorate will be needed at any time. What we must do is to have a properly qualified one. I certainly give that undertaking to the House. We have always sought to establish and maintain high standards with

the alkali inspectors, and we shall seek to do the same in this case.
I was asked a number of questions about the rôle of local authorities and other public bodies. If we are to have a national system of control—it was accepted and welcomed by every hon. Member who spoke that the system should be national rather than local— we must be true to our principles and not try to superimpose on the national system an additional local system. One reason why we think that this should be national is that it has, I think, been universally accepted that the country, necessarily at present, has not an unlimited supply of men competent to do these jobs, to give advice, and to pronounce on methods that are being employed. We intend to have fully qualified men in the Government service and, at the least, I would say that it is unlikely that there would be many medical officers of health and the like who had anything like the same experience, qualifications and skill as those who will be acting in the Government service here.
This point was raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark. She said that it violated the principle that local authorities have responsibility for safeguarding local health. I would say to her that we must decide one way or the other, and if we in Parliament are to come down in favour of a national system of control we must say that the responsibility should fall on the central Government rather than on the local authorities if we are to operate the control successfully at all.
The hon. Lady also asked who is to be responsible, let us say, for seeing that fences are maintained and that conditions are kept. It will be possible for me, through my inspectors acting on my behalf, to watch these matters in the certificates of registration that will be given. The hon. Lady—and the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Symonds) also raised the point about premises— will perhaps have noticed that in subsection (4) of Clause 1, conditions may impose
… requirements … in respect of any part of the premises, or in respect of any apparatus, equipment or appliance used or to be used thereon …
These conditions may include requirements involving structural or other


alterations, so the hon. Member for Whitehaven need not fear that we shall allow radio active waste to be accumulated "in old tin sheds" unless they are wholly suitable for that purpose.
Mention has been made several times of the three boys at Wishaw. I should remind the House that this was hardly a case of three boys inadvertently stumbling on a stockpile. It was a tribute to the astonishingly penetrative powers of small boys. They got over two fences and a main railway line. They then found a receptacle—in fact, a steel drum—and unscrewed its cap. That is how they got at the radioactive waste.
The waste in question was not waste that had been left lying about just anywhere. The firm concerned had been making arrangements with a view to disposing of its waste through facilities to be arranged for them by the Department of Health for Scotland, which had advised it to keep the waste in safe storage until ready for dispatch. I mention that again lest anything said tonight might suggest to the uninitiated that there was dangerous radioactive waste lying about at this moment on refuse tips. That really is not so.
In any case, when the Bill becomes an Act—I trust that we shall have the co-operation of the House and the Committee in putting it on the Statute Book as soon as possible—all such premises must be registered. There will be complete control over any storage of waste preparatory to disposal, and that control will extend to setting a limit to the amount of waste which may be accumulated—I think that answers another question raised by the hon. Member for Whitehaven—and there will be control over the disposal thereof. I think, therefore, that we shall have a thorough and. as it were, watertight system.
I return now to the position of local authorities. My concern is that local authorities shall be taken fully into our confidence in this matter. The system will work only if there is a real partnership between local authorities and the central Government. Yet Parliament, if it approves the Bill, is deciding that it must be the central Government which shall take the lead and have the last word. There are various provisions in the Bill for consultation with the local

authorities. My one concern is not to build up such a top-heavy system of consultation that it really sinks under its own weight.
I will give an illustration which will, perhaps, appeal to hon. Members. Many of us feel that we could do our work as Members of Parliament better if we did not receive quite such an enormous amount of paper by every post. There must be few hon. Members who have not at some time said to themselves, "I would much rather know where I can go to get the information I want instead of having it poured through my letter box every morning or handed to me in enormous quantities every day I come to the House". I feel that there is a lesson in that for the way we are seeking to proceed under the Bill.
We are providing that local authorities will receive copies of the basic documents which will show how the controls are working in their areas. They are to be consulted over disposals of waste from the major nuclear installations. They are to be consulted before the authorisation of disposals which may involve special precautions on their part. They are to be consulted before dumping grounds are established in their areas.
My noble Friend the Minister for Science in another place gave some facts and figures, which hon. Members probably have studied or will study, to show the enormous number of authorisations which will have to be made or, at any rate, decided upon when the Bill is in operation. If, however trivial the amount, every public authority had to be consulted beforehand, I very much doubt that the Bill would work. What I do say to the House is that we want to err, as it were, on the side of generosity rather than meanness in consulting the local authorities.
We are setting in the Bill minimum standards on which we wish to improve. I tell the House frankly that I believe that if we laid down by Statute that there must be formal consultation with every local authority or public body concerned before any decision to grant an authorisation was taken, the system of control would strangle itself. Obviously, we must watch it. I should be the last to suggest to the House that the Bill will be perfect and will last for ever. We must be prepared from time to time to


consider amending Bills as scientific knowledge and practical experience grow. What I do ask is that the House shall not impose on me or on the system such an elaborate machinery of format consultation that the essential facts are so wrapped round by reams of paper that we can never get through to them.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) asked me whether we could have a code of easily recognisable symbols. I think that is certainly a very attractive idea. I am not sure whether he is aware that international discussions are at present in progress to see whether an international agreement can be reached on a standard symbol to indicate radioactive materials.
Clause 1 has been drafted in such a way that if a standard symbol is devised, either internationally or nationally for this country alone, the Minister will then be able to require its use. I am glad also to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that the nature and the extent of the risks to which firemen may be exposed are being investigated, I understand, by a sub-committee of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the case which was mentioned by Sir Ernest Rock Carling and which received some publicity in the Press. I think it is right to say that the incident occurred some ten years ago and that if it had occurred now, in the context of the Bill, the best technical advice and facilities would be available to deal with a situation of that kind.
In addition, once the Bill is in operation no one will be able to put radioactive waste down any mine shaft without the Minister's authorisation, so there is no chance of all this being done in what he thought was a secretive way. In fact, it did not seem to me in this case particularly secretive because Sir Ernest Rock Carling came out into the open and disclosed to the public how a particularly unfortunate incident occurring in a hospital had been dealt with competently and without fuss at the time. It is quite reasonable that the hon. Gentleman should draw attention to a case of that kind, and I hope that he will see that under this Bill there will be every possible provision to deal with emergencies of that character.

Mr. Mason: In view of the fact that it happened ten years ago and has only just come to light and was not made known at the time, what of safety now? We had no stringent precautions ten years ago, and if this radioactive material has been dumped in a mine, have precautions since been taken as stringent as we should like to see them in this Bill?

Mr. Brooke: I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. I can assure him that the action was taken with the best scientific advice, but without question we are learning all the time and we shall every year be putting into operation and to use the best scientific knowledge that we have. It would, however, be foolish for me or any one to pretend that we knew as much ten years ago as we know today.
I certainly do not think that any allegation could be based on the fact that that was not announced at the time. After all, if every emergency situation which is dealt with competently and without fuss has to be publicised forthwith, I do not know that we should get on any better. It is far best that those who know how to handle the matter shall handle it. When this Bill is in operation the necessary authorisation will have to be obtained, and if there is any local danger involved the local authority will have to be informed.
Finally, the hon. Lady the Member for Lanark and other hon. Members spoke about disposal in the sea. In my opinion, what she was really doing was delivering a vigorous attack on the Atomic Energy Authority, because the Authority has been discharging liquid radioactive effluent from Windscale into the Irish Sea for the last seven or eight years. Most careful precautions have been taken.
One hon. Member suggested that we should consult oceanographers. The Atomic Energy Authority has consulted all the scientists available to it, including oceanographers. As to its coastal disposal, it has carried out the most stringent tests. I will not go into detail here—I will do so in Committee if it is desired—but again I want to kill any idea that radioactive waste is being poured into the sea close to the beach, whether by the Atomic Energy Authority or by anyone else.

Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) and my other hon. Friends and myself were not trying to give that impression. We were not criticising the Atomic Energy Authority We merely argued that there should be international agreement. We said that there was still uncertainty. We have never criticised the Authority for doing what it has done.

Mr. Brooke: It seemed to me that the assumption made in the hon. Lady's speech about the disposal of radioactive waste in the sea was unjustified. It seemed to me to be false. I certainly cannot take responsibility for what American companies are doing in the Gulf of Texas or elsewhere. All I can do is explain what has hitherto been done in this country by the Atomic Energy Authority and assure the House that the most stringent tests have been carried out before any radioactive waste has been discharged into the sea. These are perhaps matters which we can pursue further in Committee.

Mrs. Hart: This is legislation for the future. I am not concerned with the Atomic Energy Authority's disposal of waste in the past. I am concerned with the immense amount of waste that will come from the increased industrial use of atomic energy in the next twenty or thirty years for which we are legislating.

Mr. Brooke: I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that we shall have to deal with greatly increasing amounts and that we shall be learning all the time. My concern is that Parliament in this Bill shall construct a framework on which we shall be able effectively to build with the increasing knowledge as it comes along.
I do not think that up to now we have had a thoroughly articulated framework of control. I believe that the Bill provides it. I welcome the help of hon. Members in improving it, and I trust that we shall before long, and after thorough examination of the Bill, feel that we have put on the Statute Book a

Measure that will render even safer to human life the disposal of radioactive wastes from these great nuclear developments which should be properly directed and controlled for the glory of our country.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to regulate the keeping and use of radioactive material, and to make provision as to the disposal and accumulation of radioactive waste, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) any expenses incurred by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, the Secretary of State or the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in consequence of the passing of the said Act;
(ii) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any receipts of the Minister of Housing and Local Government or the Secretary of State under the said Act.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

WATER OFFICERS COMPENSATION BILL [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SYNTHETIC ORGANIC DYESTUFFS (IMPORT DUTY)

10.25 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 1) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 252), dated 16th February. 1960. a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.
I do not propose to detain the House for more than a minute or two, but hon. Members might wish to have a brief word of explanation about the Order. It provides for an import duty of 33⅓ per cent. ad valorem to be chargeable under the Import Duties Act, 1958, on synthetic organic dyestuffs. When introducing the European Free Trade Association Bill to the House on 15th February this year, I explained that as a result of the obligation to eliminate quantitative restrictions on imports, it was necessary in respect of dyestuffs and their intermediates—that is the term used for chemicals employed in the manufacture of dyestuffs—to abandon the present system of prohibition of imports except by licence.
The Dyestuffs Acts, under which imports which were first prohibited, remained on the Statute Book although they had not been used since 1939. Clause 5 of the European Free Trade Association Bill provided the appropriate occasion for repealing those Acts to clear the way for introduction of the tariff. The Order which is now being laid before the House completes the change-over to a tariff régime by providing for the imposition of the necessary import duty. At the same time, the control of the imports of these goods has been lifted by an amendment to the open general import licence.
The Order is thus a necessary step in the change-over from a system of protection by prohibition and licence to a system of protection by tariff for this important British industry. I accordingly ask the House to approve the Order.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I wonder whether the Minister can tell us a few things more about the Order. It is true that he is simultaneously getting rid of a system of protection and introducing a tariff system instead. That does

not, however, entirely absolve the House from inquiring why it is necessary at this date still to have some system of protection. It may be true that in 1939 or before it was considered necessary, but it does not automatically follow that it is still necessary in 1960.
From my study of the Order and the parent Order—the Import Duties (General) Order, 1958—I think that what the Minister is doing is raising the import duty on these dyestuffs from nothing to 33⅓ per cent., which is a quite steep increase in the tariff. Indeed, from some points of view, it is a quite steep increase in taxation on these materials. We are dealing not with some technical and recondite form of import, but with an important industrial raw material. It is true that not all, but only certain types, of the dyestuff imports are covered.
Can the Minister tell us what has been the total value of imports in recent years of the particular dyestuffs which are covered by tonight's Order? Was it a quite small figure? Is it trade worth several million pounds a year that we are considering? Can he tell us, since we are dealing with an industrial raw material, which, obviously, from many general points of view, some hon. Members may feel should not bear any import tariff at all, why is it still necessary, even allowing for the fact that the quota system is going, that this really quite high import duty of 33⅓ per cent. should be retained on an important material of industry?
I will not, at this time of night and on this Order, go into all the recesses and subtleties of the Government's economic policy, but I believe that the Minister of State would agree that it is the policy of the Chancellor at present that industry should keep its prices and costs down. One way in which the Government can help to keep prices and costs down is to lower or dispense with, or at least refrain from increasing, import duties, particularly on raw materials.
I think that in these circumstances we need just a little more explanation why this is necessary. It has sometimes been thought suitable, notably by Germany in recent years, to maintain competition in industry and to keep internal prices down by lowering import duties. I do not know how far it is true to say that these dyestuffs are produced


by some of our larger and better known quasi-monopoly firms, such as Imperial Chemical Industries. If they are, in fact, monopoly products one would have thought that the case for lowering import duties would have been even stronger.
I am only asking the Minister these questions. I am very glad to give him time to supply himself with the information to answer them, because we are really dealing here not with some quite negligible form of import which does not have any material effects on the rest of industry, but with quite an important raw material; and I think that we ought to have a case made for raising the import duty on it from nothing to the comparatively high level of 33⅓ per cent.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: May I reply briefly to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)? I should make it plain that imports were prohibited before this Order and that what the Order does is to apply the same tariff to dyestuffs as is applied to most other chemicals. We had what amounted virtually to a complete prohibition of imports of dyestuffs previously, except where a case could be made out. There was relatively little relaxation of control of imports of dye-stuffs until this Order came into effect. There will be a tariff instead of complete prohibition. Nevertheless, it was possible to make out a case for dyestuffs to be imported when comparable dyestuffs were not available in the United Kingdom and dyestuffs imported under these arrangements amounted to about £5 million worth per year.
I can quite understand the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman when he feels that there must be something doubtful about the value of imposing such a high tariff at present, but it must be remembered that this is merely imposing the same tariff as the rest of the chemical industry, broadly speaking, enjoys today. In the case of the E.F.T.A. countries, that tariff protection will be progressively reduced so that there will be no tariff protection against dyestuffs and chemical imports from members of the E.F.T.A. at the end of a period of ten years.

Mr. Jay: It will not apply to non-members of the E.F.T.A. countries? Did the Minister find out what tariff was on other chemical products and decide automatically to apply that to these products, or did he consider whether it is justifiable at all to keep it on all those chemicals?

Mr. Erroll: It seems to be logical to give the same tariff protection to the dyestuffs part of the chemical industry as is enjoyed by other parts of the chemical industry. It is seen to be a logical starting-off point, particularly as the dyestuffs industry itself previously enjoyed complete protection as a result of the virtual prevention of importation. It will have to experience competition because there is now a tariff instead of the quantitative restriction and because it will also face the repeated reductions in the tariff on dyestuffs from the E.F.T.A. countries. I would add that the chemical industry has realised that this changeover is necessary and has co-operated in the change-over.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 1) Order, 1960 (S.I., 1960, No. 252), dated 16th February, 1960, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL AVIATION (LICENSING) [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purpose of any Act of the present Session to provide for the licensing of certain flying, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(i) any expenditure incurred by the Minister of Aviation in consequence of the provisions of that Act;
(ii) any sums required to be so paid by any Order in Council extending any of the provisions of that Act with or without modifications and adaptations to any of the Channel Islands or to the Isle of Man;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received by the Minister of Aviation under that Act.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (IMPROVEMENT GRANTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Legh.]

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I want to draw the attention of the House to matters which are preventing the implementation of the House Purchase and Housing Act, 1959, so far as it relates to standard improvement grants and discretionary improvement grants.
The House will recall that the 1959 Act instituted a new system of standard grants and a simplification of the discretionary improvement grants and that the new standard grants are available towards baths, water closets and those amenities which are mentioned in the Act and are claimed as of right. The 1959 Act came into operation on 14th June, 1959, and just prior to that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government issued Circular No. 37 of 1959, in which he said:
Much valuable improvement work has been carried out during the past few years, but the pace is too slow, and the Minister looks to local authorities to do everything in their power to make the new arrangements known, the help enquirers with their problems and to deal speedily and sympathetically with their applications.
At the same time, my right hon. Friend issued a leaflet called "Improve Your House with a Grant" and, a little later, a booklet called "New Grants for Better Homes".
The force of the circular, the leaflet and the booklet was Chat my right hon. Friend was in effect saying to local authorities, "Unless your grants are made in accordance with what I say in these booklets and leaflets, you do not receive, towards the grant, the Exchequer contribution of 75 per cent. payable over a period of 20 years."
That position arises in this way. The improvement grants, that is to say the discretionary improvement grants, by a local authority to a private owner are made under Section 30 (1) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, and by that Section they are made in respect of "improvement works" to a dwelling. To

discover what the Act means by "improvement works" one turns to Section 42 (2), and in that Section improvements include such things as
alteration or enlargement … works of repair … not being works of ordinary repair, or if of ordinary repair are … incidental to improvement, alteration or enlargement …
This is a very wide definition, but if the local authority uses it as a wide definition in its literal sense it may well have to forgo the Exchequer contribution to which it is entitled in respect of the grants, because Section 36 (1) says no more than that the Minister may, and I repeat "may", make the 75 per cent. contribution. Unless the authority restricts its grants to the cases which involve the installation of a new amenity, it will not get a grant.
It is said in the booklet issued by the Ministry, "New Grants for Better Homes", that the grants will not cover
ordinary repairs or replacements.
That is an extraordinary interpretation of the word "improvements", which does not appear in the Statute at all, that it does not include replacements.
To the ordinary person the renewal of a worn out or obsolete amenity would, I think, be an improvement. The booklet gives an example such as that the renewal of old wiring or piping could not be regarded as an improvement. That example has been used by my right hon. Friend's Ministry to justify the refusal of a grant to join a house to a mains water supply in place of taking a supply from a contaminated well. The mains water supply was said to be a replacement of the well's supply. I quote from the Ministry's letter as follows:
In the case under consideration the house has in the past had a source of supply and presumably before this deteriorated it could have been held that the house already complied with the defined standard. To this extent the proposed work for which grant aid has been sought is on all fours, say, with the rewiring of a house for electricity where, due to lapse of time, the wiring has become dangerous. Grant is not payable, however, for renewals or replacements; the scheme is designed to assist owners to provide facilities in houses which totally lack them.
A similar argument has been used in my experience in the case of the owner desiring to install a boiler system for hot water in place of obsolete geysers. I would submit that there is nothing in the Act which restricts the definition of the


word "improvements", but it is Ministerially restricted, if I may put it that way, in this booklet whereas it is not so statutorily defined.
There is yet another Ministerial definition which the local authority has to bear in mind, and that arises under Section 31 (2) of the 1958 Act. The local authority, when deciding whether or not to make a grant, has to satisfy itself that the house will conform with such requirements as to construction and physical condition and provision of services and amenities as may be specified by the Minister. That is laid down in the Statute —" as specified by the Minister".
The Minister has specified the requirements up to which the house shall come when the improvements have been made on page 13 of the booklet "New Grants for Better Homes" by what is called a twelve point standard. All those twelve points include such words as "substantial", "properly", "adequate", "suitable", and they are construed in various ways by various local authorities.
I must refer to the last four of those twelve points. These are points which the local authority is required to satisfy itself the house will have after the improvement has been carried out. The four points read:
be provided in each room with adequate points for gas or electric lighting (where reasonably available);
be provided with adequate facilities for heating;
have satisfactory facilities for storing, preparing and cooking food;
have proper provision for the storage of fuel where required.
If the owner wants to put a bath into the property by means of a grant, he is faced with these requirements to put the property into this twelve point standard, whereas perhaps the existing amenities of the house appear neither to him as the owner-occupier nor to the tenant, if the applicant is a landlord, inadequate, improper or unsatisfactory. In this connection, there is an important difference between the discretionary improvement grant and the standard improvement grants which is often overlooked. I do not know whether that is overlooked by my hon. Friend's Ministry, but it is overlooked by many local authorities.
Section 31 (2) of the 1958 Act—that under which the Minister has laid down the twelve point standard—applies only to discretionary improvement grants. Under that, the Minister can specify the standard to be attained by a house after the improvements have been made. He can insist on that twelve point standard. But Section 31 (2) does not apply to standard grants. The corresponding Section for standard grants is Section 5 (2) of the 1959 Act, which says that the local authority must be satisfied that when the improvement has been done the house will be
in such condition as not to be unfit for human habitation, and that it is likely to remain in that condition … for… not less than fifteen years.
A local authority must satisfy itself that a house is so unfit and will still be so unfit after the improvement that it would condemn it for clearance or demolition.
The twelve points applying to discretionary grants are of a much higher standard than that applying to standard grants—"not unfit for human habitation"—and the Minister has no power to specify a twelve point standard in respect of standard grants. Yet I am sure that some local authorities are applying that twelve point standard to the standard grants and, therefore, requiring a much higher standard when making standard grants.
If Parliament had intended the Minister to specify what meant by unfitness in that Section relating to standard grants, it would have said so. For the Minister to use what might without disrespect be called back-door methods, saying that the local authority will not get the Exchequer contribution unless it applies that very high standard, is not a proper way to operate this Statute.
In passing, I might mention two other anomalous examples in relation to standard grants. Local authorities are refusing standard grants for flats over shop premises on the ground that there is no separate entrance. In reply to a Question the other day, the Minister said that that was the right rule to apply. Of course, there are many flat premises which are quite separate dwellings, although the approach to them is through some passage in or around the shop. That seems a quite artificial restriction to place on the making of standard grants.
The other anomaly arises where a lavatory is built just outside the back door of a house, there being a convenient gap in which to put, say, the dustbin. If the owner of a house like that wants to install a new bathroom with a standard grant, he cannot get such a grant because, when the bathroom has been installed, the lavatory will still not be contiguous to the house, but will be a few feet away. That again is one of the rather stupid restrictions which, I am sure, were never intended by the House when the Act was passed.
These restrictions originate in my hon. Friend's Ministry itself, but, in addition, there is great variety in the way the rules are applied by local authorities. For example, there are local authorities which will not make any grant, standard or improvement, unless a damp course is installed in the house, and yet the exhibition conversion houses of the Ministry at Wolverhampton had no damp course.
Further examples are provided by 12 houses in Gorton for which the Manchester Corporation refused a grant unless at the same time the owner would agree to
insert a damp proof course throughout the entire thickness of the exterior walls of the front and back living rooms, to render scullery walls internally with approved water-proofed material to suitable height above floor level, to relay scullery floors with approved impervious material, and replace shallow worn sinks with approved glazed earthen-ware sinks.
The landlord who is prepared to carry out some definite repairs and install amenities in the house is faced with this sort of demand from the local authority, whereas in the case of exactly similar houses nearby, the Failsworth Urban District Council put forward no such demands.
Speaking at Eastbourne on 29th February, the Minister said that he hoped landlords would take advantage of the grants. He said:
In most cases, I think it is the owner-occupiers who are going in for these grants rather than the landlords of rented property. I hope that before long the landlords will start to see the advantage of them.
I am sure that the majority of landlords do see the advantage of these grants. but many local authorities are showing discrimination between owner-occupiers and landlords. Grants are being allowed to owner-occupiers without question, but when a landlord applies for a standard

grant, the local authority finds a whole set of minor repairs which it requires him to carry out.
I could quote a case at Leicester where a number of minor repairs were required to three tenanted houses, while for a house next door in exactly the same condition the owner-occupier was given a grant without there being any question of repairs. The repairs were the re-pointing round window frames and the renewal of bedroom ceiling plaster.
The landlord who has persuaded the tenant to allow him to provide the standard amenities and has worked out how he can get some return from the 8 per cent. he is allowed to charge, is met with this obstructive attitude on the part of the local authority and he gives up trying. The grants are not made and the amenities are not installed. I ask that the Minister shall have a review made and inquire from local authorities the reasons for their refusals of these grants or for imposing conditions on the grants being made. I am sure he will discover that there is severe obstruction, particularly to landlords who come forward with enthusiasm to try to carry out this work, wearing a sort of halo round their heads because they think they are being good citizens, which landlords are so often accused of not being, and they are then faced with these obstructions. I am sure my right hon. Friend will find that in many cases the grants are being refused for reasons which are quite unjustifiable under the Act.

10.53 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) with regard to the anomalies. I wish, however, to urge the Minister to push the facilities with the local authorities. I believe that they are excellent but that they have not been taken advantage of. Section 43 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, contains a number of provisions regarding loans for constructing, converting, altering, enlarging, repairing or improving houses. Those are very wide terms, and, so far as I know, the provisions in that Section have hardly been used, in spite of their value. I believe the reason is that people do not know what can be done in that connection.
In many cases tenants desire to have improvements but, because of the way in


which their houses are built, it is not always possible to bring the improvements exactly into accord with the building byelaws. Is it not possible in certain cases, without sacrificing amenities generally, to have a relaxation of the building byelaws to enable a tenant who has many people in a house not to suffer the complete loss of a room? I am certain that tenants' hesitation to lose space is one of the things that makes them unwilling to agree to improvements.
Another difficulty arises under the 8 per cent. which can be charged on the landlord's expenditure. If a hot water system or a lavatory system is installed, there will be increased maintenance costs, and no allowance for that is made in the 8 per cent., which is not a very good return on money invested.
These are the kind of things, I suggest, which are distracting from the value of these many excellent loans and grants

10.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Sir Keith Joseph): We all want improvement grants to increase and multiply, and I am glad that these constructive criticisms have been made this evening in order that the answer to them can be given equal publicity. I am only sorry that my hon. Friends have left me rather too little time to deal adequately with everything they have raised.
My right hon. Friend is being accused of restricting administratively the wishes of Parliament in this connection. The fact is that Section 31 (2) of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) admits, expressly empowers the Minister to specify requirements with which dwellings must conform with respect to their construction if they are to qualify for grant. My right hon. Friend has specified for this purpose the "twelve point standard", to which my hon. Friend referred, which is set out in its latest form in paragraph 46 of "New Grants for Better Homes". The infinite variety of housing and of satisfactory conditions of housing cannot be encompassed in a precise schedule, hence the form of the twelve points,

which must to some extent use adjectives for definition.
In addition, of course, there is the fact that contributions from the Exchequer in aid of discretionary grants paid by the local authority are entirely at the discretion of my right hon. Friend, as will be seen from Section 36 of the 1958 Act. It is, in fact, my right hon. Friend's job, imposed on him by the House, to see that any Exchequer money spent in making improvements is well spent.
What is the object of improvement grants? It is to ensure that structurally sound older dwellings which lack modern amenities are brought as nearly as may be up to the standard of a modern house and so given a new lease of life. That new lease of life is defined, as my hon. Friend said, as fifteen years for a standard grant and thirty years for a discretionary grant.
But improvement grants are not intended to relieve an owner of property of the responsibility for keeping it in repair and generally maintaining it. The purpose of improvement grants is to assist owners of property to equip houses with amenities which they have never possessed and as far as possible to bring them up to the standard of a modern house. It is the purpose of the twelve point standard to express this standard of a modern house.
The term "improvement" is not defined in the 1958 Act, except that it is expressed as excluding ordinary works of repair. In the simplest of language, repair comprehends everything which is necessary to prevent the deterioration of a property, including the replacement of its components as they wear out, even, indeed, the replacement of an item by its modern equivalent. Improvement signifies something which goes beyond replacement—not merely holding one's own, as it were, but a positive advance towards better conditions. In the slang sense, no doubt, the replacement of obsolete electric wiring or obsolete heating systems constitutes an improvement, but in the strict sense of the term it is merely part of maintenance, being action necessary to maintain the property in its previous condition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby referred to a case in which the Ministry was not prepared to authorise


the payment of grant in respect of connecting a house to a main water supply in place of taking the supply from a contaminated well. My hon. Friend did not go on to say, as was the case, that the property concerned was 900 yards from the nearest road and that it had been omitted from the local authority's water supply scheme because, in the opinion of the authority, the supply of piped water in that case over that distance would be uneconomic.
My hon. Friend may think that the Department is merely being pernickety and pedantic, if I may suggest words to him, in advising that replacements are not improvements, but an owner of property who can satisfy the simple conditions involved is entitled to a standard grant in respect of the cost of installing such standard amenities as his property lacks.
If replacements for worn-out baths and the like are potentially within the scope of the grant system, it follows that every owner of a pre-1945 house has a statutory right to be assisted from public funds in effecting a replacement. My hon. Friend will agree that that is nonsense, and rather expensive nonsense at that.
My hon. Friend went on as his next criticism to refer to what he called the anomaly arising from the insistence that any house which is improved with the aid of a standard grant must have a water closet in or contiguous to the dwelling. This requirement is in the Act. It was inserted in the Act as a result of Opposition pressure during the Committee stage of the Bill. The Bill originally required that a dwelling should possess a water closet for the exclusive use of its occupants. The words "contiguous" is not defined, but my right hon. Friend has advised local authorities that it should have its literal meaning of "touching". It appears to be this advice with which my hon. Friend is quarrelling.
However, my hon. Friend may like to know that the bulk of the criticism we receive is precisely to the contrary effect. Many people have argued that every dwelling with any pretensions to being adequate should possess a water closet which is either inside the dwelling or at the very least accessible under cover and that the Ministry was behind the times in countenancing outside water closets

which adjoined the house but required the few steps across the yard to approach it. On this count, therefore, my hon. Friend is in conflict with the majority view.
My hon. Friend went on to criticise the application by local authorities of the repairs requirements. As he quite rightly said, here a distinction has to be drawn between discretionary grants and standard grants. In the case of discretionary grants, since the local authority has a discretion whether it will pay any grant or not, it is always in a position to insist on the carrying out of repairs as a condition of the making of a grant. In some cases, this insistence on repairs is very likely carried to excess, and indeed this proclivity of authorities to be a little over-zealous about repairs was one of the reasons which led to the introduction of standard grants. In the case of standard grants, authorities have no discretion, but they have to be satisfied before a grant is made that when the work is done the dwelling will not be unfit for human habitation and that it is likely to remain fit for at least fifteen years.
My right hon. Friend made it abundantly plain in paragraph 13 of Circular 37/59 that dwellings improved with the aid of standard grants are not required to conform to the twelve point standard, but there remains the condition about fifteen years' life and fitness for human habitation. If there are serious defects of repair which if neglected will lead to the speedy deterioration of the property, it is obviously the local authority's duty to insist on the work being done. I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree with that. Conversely, it obviously ought not to trouble itself about instances of minor neglect which are not likely to threaten the future of the property for the fifteen years life.
The complaints which have been made are that some local authorities have been going too far in insisting on relatively minor defects being remedied. If the facts are as stated, that is regrettable, but there is no positive action which my right hon. Friend can take, because the question whether a standard grant shall be made is entirely regulated by statute. Without having a special inspection of the properties concerned, it is impossible to express any opinion in an individual case.
I have not time to deal with the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), but I can promise him that they will be examined closely.
In conclusion, my right hon. Friend is extremely keen on spreading improvement grants, particularly among land-

lords, and he loses no opportunity to stress this. I hope that the ventilation of what are considered to be obstacles and my reply may do something to enlarge the scope of improvement grants among landlords.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eleven o'clock.